On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > On 27 Oct 2014, at 18:31, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Andrea, > > > > I don't have strong opinion about this proposal. > > It doesn't make any harm to the engine, and it really may speed-up code > especially written for read-only properties. > > On the other hand you introduce new orthogonal to > private/protected/public visibility rule, > > and I'm not sure if this complication is good for language. > > > > Why did you disable read-only static methods? (I just didn't get it). > > You couldn't really have a read-only method, there's no get/set equivalent > for methods. The reason they're explicitly disallowed in the code is > because, to avoid shift/reduce conflicts, I have to add it as a member > modifier but then check the AST to see if it was used. > > The reason for disallowing static methods is we currently don't use > separate code paths for get/set of static methods, we just call one > function to obtain a pointer. Of course I could make that function be told > whether it's for writing, I just hadn't done it yet. >
Oh. I meant static properties, of course. (zend_compile.c line 4219) Thanks. Dmitry. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ >
