This discussion is opened in the dedicated thread. I used my proposal as an
example to illustrate my point of view, not to pollute this thread.
2012/10/16 Jazzer Dane <tbprogram...@gmail.com>
> I prefer the current syntax to your proposal because:
>
> 1) It is not at all obvious which side is which. Example:
> *protected:private
> * Is protected* *for get? Or set? The average PHP developer will have
> no idea. In fact, they likely won't know that they even correlate to get
> and set.
>
> 2) There is no such syntax already in PHP. (And on a more personal note,
> I don't think I've ever seen that syntax in any other language that I've
> worked in before. Which means it's even *more-so* out of people's comfort
> zones.)
>
> The current read/write syntax works, and none of the discussion I've read
> thus far would sway me towards any other option.
>
> That being said, I wouldn't contest to hearing - in more detail - your
> reasoning behind why we should use it instead of the current syntax.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Amaury Bouchard <ama...@amaury.net>wrote:
>
>> 2012/10/15 Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com>
>>
>> > Also, your "should be valid" statement implies that you feel properties
>> > and accessors are the same and they are not, internally. When a class
>> > attempts to implement an interface a "function check" is done and since
>> > there is no __getXX() function defined it would fail to implementation
>> > check against an interface.
>> >
>> > I cannot stress enough that properties != accessors in any way except
>> the
>> > syntax in which they are used ($o->xyz) or ($o->xyz = 1), that is their
>> > *only* similarity.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. That's why I said this is a matter of choice. A philosophical
>> choice.
>> I don't see properties and accessors like different things which are
>> accidentally written the same. Accessors are a layer upon properties. It's
>> a magical layer, trying to mimic accessors.
>> It's a bit like aspect-oriented programming: you can add layer but the
>> core
>> is still the same (from a developper point of view, not from the PHP
>> interpreter point of view).
>>
>>
>> See another argument: My proposal for read/write accessibility definition.
>> When I suggested to allow this syntax: "public:private $abc;"
>> some people objected that it's the same than "public $abc { get; private
>> set; }"
>>
>> So, if I understand what you said, for you it's deeply different and
>> comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. I disagree. I still
>> think my syntax is better (and could be implemented with better
>> performance), but it's normal to compare them, because they (can) offer
>> pretty much the same functionnalities.
>>
>
>
