If at all possible, I'd rather not add extra keywords such as read-only and
write-only to the language. If it's unnecessary than it shouldn't be done -
that's my point of view. The question is thus "is read-only necessary?".
The proposal brought up by someone else was using
> private final set($value) {}
>
and
> private final get() {}
>
With no code in-between the braces, the functions are not accessible, not
extensible, and pointless. Thus we could arguably use them as alternatives
to the proposed read/write-only syntax.
But, in my previous emai,l I brought up the fact that this proposal isn't
that logically sound. The above lines of code don't exactly mean that
get/set aren't allowed... but at the same time, I don't know of any
scenarios where a developer would want to use private final get/set wherein
null is always returned or nothing is ever set.
The fact that this proposal is consistent with the language is a plus to
me. But I don't think it's enough - I don't like the logical
inconsistencies it brings.
If I were to vote between the two as to which gets implemented into PHP, I
would probably lean towards read/write-only, but I'm not a fan of either.
In the end, we need it to be logical. Good looking, consistent syntax is
nice, but having something behave even a little bit illogically is not at
all okay.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> Why is everyone so dead set against read-only and write-only?****
>
> ** **
>
> I could not disagree more with you on what is “pretty” and “readable”.****
>
> ** **
>
> To me:****
>
> ** **
>
> public read-only $hours {****
>
> get { … }****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> Is infinitely more readable and understandable than:****
>
> ** **
>
> public $hours {****
>
> get() { ... }****
>
> private final set($value) { … }****
>
> }****
>
> ** **
>
> The latter implies that it can be “set” within the right context
> (internally to the class), which is precisely the opposite of what is
> desired (read only).****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jazzer Dane [mailto:tbprogram...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:18 PM
> *To:* Clint Priest
> *Cc:* internals@lists.php.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1****
>
> ** **
>
> This all sounds about right.
>
>
> In regards to #4 - read-only/write-only:
> I think that, from a "pretty syntax" point of view, private final set() {}
> and private final get() {} are definitely our best bets. But... from a
> logical point of view, I prefer read-only/write-only.
>
> private final get() {} is technically saying it will always return null.
> private final set() {} is technically saying that setting doesn't do
> anything - but it still works.
>
> But I don't see any sane scenario where someone would want to do the
> above. Therefore, it may just be best to use them in place of the currently
> proposed read-only/write-only.****
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Okay, I would like this to be the last time there are revisions to this
> RFC.
>
> To sum up the last few days of conversations, I have these down as points
> of contention:
>
> 1. Accessor functions should not be present on the object and callable
> directly, for example, $o->__getHours() should not be allowed.
> 2. Preferred syntax for accessors should be "public set($value) { ... }"
> with no "magic" $value (with possible type hinting)
> 3. Automatically implemented get; set; with auto-backing field should be
> eliminated as this is not necessary for PHP and is confusing most everyone.
> 4. read-only / write-only keywords, keep them or get rid of them? There
> is no directly suitable replacement but I believe a private final set() { }
> will take care of it, even though it much more verbose.
> 5. Error handling for thrown exceptions should be made more appropriate
> for accessors
> 6. The "truth" of reflection. Should it reveal details internal to how
> PHP works on the inside or should it reflect the way PHP presents it as
> options?
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
>
> I will come up with some way for people to vote on the issues at hand and
> we can cast our votes and be done with it, then I will finish the project
> and get it out the door.
>
> -Clint****
>
> ** **
>
