Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1

[Christian Kaps]

Hi,

typehinting should definitely be available for this feature. But I have 
another question. Why not go more consistent with the rest of the 
language? I have mentioned this previously as the first proposal comes 
up on the list. In my opinion the AS3 getter and setter 
syntax(http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f30.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7fcb) 
fits more into the language as the proposed one.

Here are my concerns:
- I do not like the extra indentation level and it's ugly to document 
(OK, this is a personal preference)
- It isn't possible to declare a private setter and a public getter, as 
it is possible with methods
- If we ever get return type hinting/checks then we needn't consider 
how the syntax has to look
- We must deal with two different syntaxes for the same thing, because 
both are methods
- IDE's, documentation tools, static analyses tools or similar tools 
have a huge effort to implement this syntax. With the method syntax it's 
only a small effort
- We have to create new rules about how the documentation for this 
syntax should look like

For me the following syntax seems more consistent with the rest of PHP:

public get hours() {}
public set hours(DateTime $dateTime) {}
public isset hours() {}
public unset hours() {}

Or:

public function get hours() {}
public function set hours(DateTime $dateTime) {}
public function isset hours() {}
public function unset hours() {}

Or:

public function get $hours() {}
public function set $hours(DateTime $dateTime) {}
public function isset $hours() {}
public function unset $hours() {}

Cheers,
Christian

Am 09.10.2012 05:08, schrieb Jazzer Dane:
While I understand your concern with set being the only keyword using 
(),
and even agree it's a bit problematic, I see a big problem with using
$value.

Even if $value internally makes sense due to something along the 
lines of *
__setHours($value)* {} being equal to *set {}*, I think using $value
without it ever being defined in the developer's code is not at all a 
good
idea.
If I see $value in the code, I'll logically look for where it was 
defined,
and when I don't see it anywhere else in the code, things are going 
to very
quickly get confusing.
Our best option to combat this confusion is, in my eyes, putting a 
note in
the documentation. That's not enough.

A similar alternative to using $value that I'd argue would be much 
more
sensible would be to, as Denis mentioned, use either a magic constant 
or a
superglobal.

As I mentioned previously, I would rather go with the set($value) {} 
syntax.

Now, back to the part where I agree with you - the inconsistency 
wherein
set has () that denote it is a method but get, isset, and unset do 
not. I
see this inconsistency as something problematic enough to warrant a
solution.

We could go with the following:
public $Hours {
  get() { ... }
  set($value) { ... }
  isset() { ... }
  unset() { ... }
}

Yes, we now have a little bit more meat on the syntax, but in this 
case, I
don't think that it's all that bad. Here's two reasons why:
1) Adding parenthesis denotes that they are all functions - which 
they are!
If anything, adding parenthesis to all of them makes the 
implementation *
more* sensible.
2) It's *only* two more characters per function. On top of that, in 
my
opinion, this syntax is not "ugly". In fact, as I just mentioned - 
this
implementation is arguably *more* consistent with the rest of PHP.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> 
wrote:

Seems a fair amount of people would like it with a definable 
parameter
name, though the original RFC I based mine off of is more than 4 
years old
(mine is over a year old already).

The $value is precisely chosen because it is exactly the way C# 
operates
and the original author thought to keep it the same as another 
well-known
language (why re-invent new syntax for no reason).

That being said, javascript does indeed allow it, my concern then 
would be
would we have the parameterized syntax only for set() and not get, 
isset or
unset?

If we do have them for all of them, it's a lot of extra characters 
with no
real need.

I definitely favor set($value) over a magic $Hours for the $Hours
property, but I personally see no problem with the $value, it's not 
magic
it's a locally defined variable.

Internally, this:
   public $Hours {
      get { ... }
      set { ... }
   }

Is implemented as standard functions, while they are hidden through
reflection, these functions exist (as a result of the above 
example):

public __getHours() { ... }
public __setHours($value) { ... }

Lastly, with regards to JavaScript style getters/setters, I don't 
think
I've ever cared what the variable name was, I typically just do 
something
like:

set blah(x) { ... } <-- x is fairly irrelevant and similarly the use 
of
$value is fairly irrelevant.   Thoughts?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jazzer Dane [mailto:tbprogram...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: Benjamin Eberlei
> Cc: Aaron Holmes; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Propety Accessors v1.1
>
> I agree.
> It's more consistent than the $Hours solution and we don't have to 
add
another superglobal or magic constant, which is quite nice. The
> typehinting is a big plus as well.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Eberlei 
<kont...@beberlei.de
>wrote:
>
> > The set() one is really nice with the typehints.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Aaron Holmes 
<aa...@aaronholmes.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/8/12 1:07 PM, Denis Portnov wrote:
> > >
> > >> 08.10.2012 15:52, Clint Priest пишет:
> > >>
> > >>>      public $Hours {
> > >>>          get { return $this->Seconds / 3600; }
> > >>>          set { $this->Seconds = $value; }
> > >>>          isset<http://www.php.net/isset**>  { return isset<
> > >>> http://www.php.net/isset**>($this->Seconds); }
> > >>>          unset<http://www.php.net/unset**>  { unset<
> > >>> http://www.php.net/unset**>($this->Seconds); }
> > >>>      }
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Clint,
> > >>
> > >> I've noticed some magic variable '$value' is introduced. And 
except
> > >> for superglobals I guess there is no such thing in PHP, so it 
looks
> > >> bit puzzling to me. I'd suggest on of the following:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - setter resambles setter method, wich also allows 
typehinting
> > >>     public $Hours {
> > >>         set ($value) { $this->Seconds = $value * 3600; }
> > >>     }
> > >>
> > >>     public $Hours {
> > >>         set (DateTime $dateTime) { $this->Seconds =
> > >> $dateTime->getTimestamp(); }
> > >>     }
> > >>
> > >>  This seems like the cleanest method, in my opinion. 
Javascript
> > >> does
> > this
> > > for object prototypes:
> > > http://ejohn.org/blog/**javascript-getters-and-**setters/<
> > http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-getters-and-setters/>
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To 
unsubscribe,
> > > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > >
> > >
> >



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php