--- Marcus Boerger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello boots, > > Thursday, August 4, 2005, 6:29:51 AM, you wrote: > > As far as introspection (points 1 and 2), would it be reasonable to > > allow __get/__set to be called without any parameters in which case > > they would be expected to optionally return an array or object > > designating the properties that they support? I know that this is > > somewhat magical but dynamic features are somewhat magical to begin > > with -- which is part of their charm. > > To complicated and uses one thing to do two completley different > things which confuses everyone.
Why is that more complicated than adding more keywords and/or property mechanisms? The idea is not to add anything at all except a new signature for __get and one for __set allowing them to be self-describing. So this should still be BC and it would additionally be optional. In terms of one thing doing two -- this is, after all, in regards to an overloading mechanism; I would think that people using overloading would find the concept a single method with two different signatures returning two different types quite natural. The fact that the first type is really an introspection of the second type is nice to me. Thanks for your reply, Marcus. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
