Clint,
Very nice job overall! Looking quite good.
> Alternatively we could throw an error to a call on isset and/or unset
> against a property which didn't define an implementation.
I don't care for that concept much. All it's doing is trading one set
of boilerplate for another. I'd prefer the get() !== null approach,
since there is a zval allocated for it, so the isset() part.
And I do like the unset overloading, which is right inline with __unset()...
Additionally, is something like this possible?
class Foo {
private $bar = 1;
public $bar {
get { return $this->bar; }
set { $this->bar = (int) $value; }
}
}
The reason that I ask, is that's kind of what's done with __get() and
__set() right now, the magic is called when it's out of scope. So in
this case, we can have a public variable with the same name as the
private one, but with validations attached to the public exposure...
Just a thought...
Anthony
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Clint M Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> I've updated the RFC to include details on adding isset/unset as well as
> references, detailed below:
>
> isset/unset:
>
> class TimePeriod {
> private $Seconds = 3600;
>
> public $Hours {
> get { return $this->Seconds / 3600; }
> set { $this->Seconds = $value; }
> isset { return !is_null($this->Seconds); }
> unset { $this->Seconds = NULL; }
> }
> }
>
> References:
>
>
> class SampleClass {
>
> private $_dataArray = array(1,2,5,3);
>
>
>
> public $dataArray {
>
> &get { return &$this->_dataArray; }
>
> }
>
> }
>
>
>
> $o = new SampleClass();
>
> sort($o->dataArray);
>
> /* $o->dataArray == array(1,2,3,5); */
>
> Comments?
>
> These would also include automatic implementations which call the respective
> functions on the backing field. I could see only allowing isset/unset
> automatic implementations if get/set were also specified as automatic
> implementations.
>
> Default implementations of isset/unset
>
> I'm also fielding comments/ideas on a way to always provide automatic
> implementations of isset/unset for any accessor that didn't define one
> automatically. One idea was for the isset (unspecified implementation) which
> would return true if the getter provided any value which evaluated to true,
> such as this:
>
> class TimePeriod {
> private $Seconds = 3600;
>
> public $Hours {
> get { return $this->Seconds / 3600; }
> set { $this->Seconds = $value; }
> }
> }
> /* Default Implementation Concept */
>
> isset { return (int)$this->Hours; }
> unset { $this->Hours = NULL; }
>
> Note that the automatic implementation of unset is not strictly the same as
> an unset() but without any sort of unset implementation a call to unset()
> would do nothing. Alternatively we could throw an error to a call on isset
> and/or unset against a property which didn't define an implementation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Clint
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
