On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:49:23AM -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> __get_x() is simply a shortcut, I don't see how it can
> backfire on us in the overload framework.
Nor can I, at the moment.
But then, nobody did see how variable constructor names could
possibly backfire on us with a concrete example, nor were
registered globals generally considered a bad idea when they
were introduced.
I just want it on record that I have the same bad feeling as
with variable constructor names right now with __get_x(). And I
suggest a different method of implementing your desired
behaviour which gives you more control about how the namespace
is being used. There are at least two I can come up with:
1. You register the property handlers and call wrappers with
overload or within the ctor. That would be a three-tuple
(slot, getter name, setter name) for properties, and a pair
(slot, wrapper name) for instance functions. Or you declare
them, using a more static syntax, if this is too dynamic for
you:
class A {
private $a;
getter function __get_a() {
return $this->a;
}
setter function __set_a($v) {
$this->a = $v;
}
2. You name the instance variables and methods to be handles
specially when calling overload(), but do not allow
for user specified names.
Kristian
--
Kristian K�hntopp, NetUSE AG, Dr.-Hell-Stra�e, D-24107 Kiel
Tel: +49 431 386 435 00, Fax: +49 431 386 435 99
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
