Hi! > Stas, if you define an accessor, how do you define it? Do you say
Either way, doesn't matter. > According to the current proposal at least you can write the first > code *and the first code only*. If you write the second code then you That's where I think it is wrong. It would be much simpler and consistent with existing PHP if it were a natural extension of __get instead of a completely new and foreign concept. > special behavior for properties. You probably won't start off with > telling them that this declaration is automatically converted to a set > of __getFoo methods which are registered as handlers for the accessor. > I really don't see how going into details like __getFoo makes anything > easier. Depending on your purpose and background. If you know how __get works, extrapolating to __getFoo is trivial. Getting special syntax that produces __getFoo from this is also trivial. Getting the concept of methods that are not quite methods and get called only through special intercept mechanism and have special backtrace rewriting engine and reflection hiding patches so you can be inside the method that officially does not exist - not so trivial. -- 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
