On 1 December 2010 10:38, Stas Malyshev <[email protected]> wrote:
> So we have one set of properties where get and isset use different methods
> and another set of properties where get and isset use same method but with
> parameter. I think it's not the best way to go. It's better to ignore isset
> altogether than this.
No. The prototype of all setters would be the same. As would the
prototype of all getters.
The prototype would be ...
[public|protected|private] property $property {
[public|protected|private] mixed|bool get([bool $isset = false]) {
// mixed result for get, bool result for isset
},
[public|protected|private] mixed|void set(mixed $value [, bool
$unset = false]) { // mixed result for set, void result for unset
},
};
>From a user's perspective ...
echo isset($instance->property) ? 'isset to ' . $instance->property :
'not isset';
This would result in 2 calls ...
property->get(true) // Let the getter that an attempt is being made to
see if the property has been set.
and
property->get(false) // Let the getter know that the getter is
expected to return the properties value.
Similarly for the setter.
$instance->property = 'foo';
unset($instance->property);
would result in 2 calls ...
property->set('foo', false) // Let the setter know that it should be
setting the value of the property to 'foo'.
and
property->set(null, true) // Let the setter know that an attempt to
unset the property has taken place.
Maybe the proposal should be changed to ...
[public|protected|private] property $property {
[public|protected|private] mixed get() {
},
[public|protected|private] mixed set(mixed $value) {
},
[public|protected|private] bool isset() {
},
[public|protected|private] void unset() {
},
};
(NOTE: Add in abstract and final as appropriate).
--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
