Hi Marco,
2017-01-16 0:27 GMT+01:00 Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Wes,
>
> This has been discussed before, and it's currently used to intercept access
> to properties. Since we don't have property accessors (sigh), the code
> (simplified version) would look like following:
>
> class Foo
> {
> public $bar = 'baz';
> }
>
> class FooInterceptor extends Foo
> {
> private $wrapped;
> public function __construct(Foo $wrapped)
> {
> $this->wrapped = $wrapped;
> unset($this->bar);
> }
> public function __get(string $name)
> {
> var_dump('reading ' . $name);
> return $this->wrapped->$name;
> }
> }
>
> $foo = new FooInterceptor(new Foo);
>
> var_dump($foo->bar);
>
> You can see a working example at https://3v4l.org/UtugD
There is one more thing might be confusing - reflection tells there still
exists bar property after unset while it's realy not.
For example https://3v4l.org/NAg1l
$class = new ReflectionClass(FooInterceptor::class);
$property = $class->getProperty('bar');
var_dump($property); // still exists while actually being unset may cause
errors
I'm sticking to extending class without magic _get method implemented.
>
>
> This behavior is protected from regressions since PHP 5.4, but has been
> working since 5.0:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/cd2b462a2742c79256668d4736644e
> 34573c33d9/tests/classes/unset_properties.phpt
>
> We can most probably get rid of this weird behavior once property accessors
> are in the language.
>
> Greets,
>
> Marco Pivetta
>
> http://twitter.com/Ocramius
>
> http://ocramius.github.com/
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Wes <netmo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello elephpants.
> >
> > Currently PHP allows explicitly declared fields (eg public $foo = 10;) to
> > be removed entirely through unset (eg unset($obj->foo)).
> >
> > Now that isn't really an issue as properties in php are currently untyped
> > and therefore nullable; at worst you would get a notice. But it would
> > become an issue with typed fields... that might get a second chance
> sooner
> > or later.
> >
> > But regardless of that, it looks very strange to me that this is allowed
> > for fields that are explicitly declared. I think unset() should set the
> > field to null if it's declared in the class, and remove the field
> > altogether only if it was defined dynamically.
> >
> > On the other hand, this is just one of many ways of hacking php that just
> > exist and we accept / don't care because we have faith in other people
> not
> > doing nasty stuff with our code. This might sound ironic it is actually
> not
> > :P
> >
> > However, I am curious: what you think about this? Should PHP do something
> > in regard? Should this continue to work like it does now? Why do you feel
> > it should do the one or the other?
> >
>
--
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
about.me/brzuchal
brzuchalski.com
