> On 29 Oct 2014, at 04:29, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggi...@seld.be> wrote:
>
> Yup that's definitely better than having the readonly flag in the {} block as
> I had it.
>
> I'd however say that it should be possible to define a writable property with
> only a getter and then the setter would implicitly be created. Since readonly
> is the way to define writability why should I have to specify a setter (even
> a default empty one) if none is needed?
>
> P.S: Don't want to open pandora's box, but we could also have writeonly for
> completeness perhaps. I don't really see the use case at all though
> (immutability sure, mutant bottomless pit objects not so much:).
I don’t think allowing write-only properties is a good idea if we need a new
keyword for it.
To be honest, for such a use case, using a setter method is probably better
than assigning as if it were a normal property. While people would probably
tolerate and understand read-only (from their perspective outside the class)
properties, I think write-only properties will just lead to poor API design and
confusion.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
