On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Recently the setters/getters rfc was declined.
>
> Other than the vote, was there any technical reasons?
>
> I've been sitting here and had a thought.
>
> Currently, if I use ...
>
> <?php
> class some_base_class {}
> ?>
>
> I can, sort of, think of this as ...
>
> <?php
> class some_base_class extends \stdClass {}
> ?>
>
> in as much as \stdClass has no constants, properties or methods. In fact,
> no behaviour at all.
>
> Now, could it be possible that I could have another PHP maintained base
> class or interface that DID support setters/getters?
>
> So, I would have to make the decision at develop time ...
>
> <?php
> class some_base_class extends \stdClassThatHasSetterGetterSupport {}
> ?>
>
> sort of thing.
>
> So, for classes NOT extending \stdClassThatHasSetterGetterSupport, the
> variable/property handling to be used is the original style.
>
> But for those base classes that do extend from
> \stdClassThatHasSetterGetterSupport, then these would have property
> support.
>
>
> Is this even possible/feasible?
>
> Whilst the vote went against the initial rfc, I'm happy to accept that
> (though I wish it had passed as I like the black boxing and the semantic
> cleanliness it would provide - IMHO).
>
>
> To me, if the internals operated as ...
>
> <?php
> class \stdClassThatHasSetterGetterSupport extends \stdClass {}
> ?>
>
> add if that was enough to enable setters/getters, then COULD this be a way
> forward for PHP supporting new functionality without breaking base
> functionality?
>
> In essence, turning PHP's internals into a sort of OOP framework.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard.
>
PHP does not support multiple inheritance. So no, this doesn't solve really
the issue.
Nikita
