2012/10/16 Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com>
> In this regard, I have yet to see any proposal that is as clear or concise
> as public read-only $abc. What is the big problem with adding read-only
> and write-only keywords? Once they are in the language they could be
> expanded to plain properties.
public:const $abc;
(in cyberspace, no one can hear me scream)
No need for another keyword when there is one doing the job.
IMHO, write-only doesn't make any sense. If you define something "like an
attribute" to be only writeable, in fact you are defining a method.
But you use it like that:
$obj->attr = 3;
instead of using it like that:
$obj->meth(3);
What's the point?
More, read-only and write-only are very poor-meaning keywords. We need full
PPP visibility (and yes, I know the RFC allows asymetric visibility, but it
implies to create accessors and therefore some code).
