*Should have been !== null
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM, David Neilsen <da...@pan.co.nz> wrote:
> "missing any real-world examples of why it might be useful"
>
> One thing the I have run across in making my libraries, is the not being
> able to call a function `default`.
>
> I use the chainable getter/setter in one syntax a lot (a la jQuery). Hence
> when I have a class with a property named default, and can not make a
> method in that sense. It makes my API inconsistent as I have to use a
> getDefault, setDefault, when every other method is a single word.
>
> Such as:
>
> class Foo {
> public $default;
> public function default($default = null) {
> if ($default === null) {
> return $this->default;
> }
> $this->default = $default;
> return $this;
> }
> }
>
> This might not be the prefered way to write methods, but I don't see why
> the language should restrict me from doing so because the word default is
> used in a different context.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Matthew Leverton <lever...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Stuart Langley <slang...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > To be honest, looking at the example in the RFC, being able to define a
>> > member function 'new' on a class that completely changes the semantics
>> of
>> > the new operator is a great example of why you would not want this
>> feature.
>> >
>> It doesn't change anything because $foo->new() has no intrinsic
>> meaning in PHP. And I don't think the argument "the programmer might
>> do something stupid" ever holds much weight as a no vote against
>> anything. If somebody wants to create a confusing misnomer, he doesn't
>> need this proposed feature to do so.
>>
>> But I agree that the RFC is missing any real-world examples of why it
>> might be useful, and that any new language feature should have
>> real-world benefits. Hopefully some more compelling reasons will be
>> added to the RFC.
>>
>> Here's something that I've personally done with much shame:
>>
>> class Where
>> {
>> private function _or($lhs, $op = null, $rhs = null)
>> {
>> }
>>
>> public function __call($func_name, $args)
>> {
>> if ($func_name == 'or')
>> return call_user_func_array([$this, '_or'], $args);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> $query->where('foo', '=', 1)->or('bar', '=', 2);
>>
>> Imagine that $query->where() returns a Where object. I really want an
>> "or" method because it make things concise & readable, but this is not
>> allowed. So I override the __call method to add such functionality,
>> which adds useless overhead.
>>
>> There are a few keywords, such as list and unset, that I often wish I
>> could use in PHP. So in terms of readability, I think any sane
>> programmer would use this proposed functionality for good...
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Leverton
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
