On 11/30/10 6:15 PM, presid...@basnetworks.net wrote:
public property Hours read getHours write setHours;
I actually like that, though I think we should support the whole
existing semantics, i.e. get/set/isset/unset. And probably keep the
names, so we don't call the same thing both "read" and "get".
This doesn't make sense. To call isset() on a property, would be to ask
if the property itself exists. But once defined, a property always exists
(think of methods, for example).
(Sorry for sending again Stas, I forgot to reply all)
- Dennis
True, but if part of the intent (as noted in a previous email) is to
provide a mechanism that looks to the outside world like a class member,
and therefore one can switch between the two without breaking an API,
then isset/unset should have some sort of useful meaning. They do for
__*() magic methods and for ArrayAccess (albeit named differently), so
there should be some sort of meaningful definition here. Otherwise they
are only half a drop-in/break-no-API replacement for a class member.
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
