On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 3 June 2013 18:22, Brandon Wamboldt <bran...@brandonwamboldt.ca> wrote: > > > I think the point was that if somebody wants to extend one another class, > > maybe one of the SPL classes for example, they can't also extend the base > > class with getter/setter support so it's an incomplete solution that will > > frustrate many users. > > [...] > > > Ah. DOH! > > Would having an interface that swapped the default property accessor logic > be any better? > Or a trait ("Accessable", "Accessored", "Accessorable")? Is it possible to have a trait implemented internally? Though it seems that this would still sometimes run afoul of mixing new accessor logic with old.