Hi!
> In regards to #11, yes, you'd just write {}. I imagine you could also
This doesn't work for the same class (and for traits which put things in
the context of the same class) - it would not behave as "no setter", it
would behave as "there's a setter doing nothing". Is this the proposed
solution?
Exception is a possibility but then everybody would do it differently
which reduces the value of standardizing it (the whole point of having
accessors since otherwise we could just do __get and throw exceptions).
> We went through multiple alternative options to read/write-only, and the
> implementation you see in the 1.2 RFC is the most widely agreed upon
> proposal. I don't doubt that there is room for improvement in this area,
> but we haven't had any further proposals as of yet.
Actually, I do not see anything explicitly said in the proposal that
works for the cases outlined above. I wanted to just make sure if that
means "no solution currently" (then should be on TODO list) or "we have
a solution but it's not outlined in the RFC" (should be added then).
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
