On 1/22/2013 9:24 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
For those that have voted against this proposal, are there any
clarifications that can be made or questions answered?
I can say that this bit is particularly confusing:
public $foo {}
My understanding that this code will not emit any warnings when
interpreted, but the $foo property has no getter nor setter. You can
call isset which will return false but unset will emit a warning, yes?
This is correct except in the case where you are inheriting the
property. The above, on it's own class would be pointless.
I would think that the above snippet would create a property with all
public, default implementations.
If you are looking to create a public property with default
implementations, the following will suffice and has for a long time:
public $foo;
I see why it doesn't: it doesn't
permit you to declare only a getter and no setter.
Not sure what you mean here, you can declare a property with a getter
and no setter, such as:
public $foo { get; }
Which allows the property to be read, but not written, this is what the
asymmetrical access is about.
This is just one more reason for me to vote no on this.
--
-Clint
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
