On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 3 June 2013 18:22, Brandon Wamboldt <bran...@brandonwamboldt.ca> wrote:
>
> > I think the point was that if somebody wants to extend one another class,
> > maybe one of the SPL classes for example, they can't also extend the base
> > class with getter/setter support so it's an incomplete solution that will
> > frustrate many users.
> > [...]
> >
> Ah. DOH!
>
> Would having an interface that swapped the default property accessor logic
> be any better?
>
Or a trait ("Accessable", "Accessored", "Accessorable")? Is it possible to
have a trait implemented internally? Though it seems that this would still
sometimes run afoul of mixing new accessor logic with old.
