I am confused by one thing about the RFC. There is a section for default
accessor implementations where you specify an accessor without a body,
however many of the examples omit the isset and unset accessors. I would
assuming that omitting an accessor would provide the automagic
implementation. If this is the case what is the need for the special
syntax? If this is not the case then what is the effect of omitting an
accessor?
I do see that omitting the setter creates a read-only property, however I
think the syntax would be less ambiguous and easier to use by introducing a
`readonly` keyword:
class MyClass
{
public readonly $myProp {
// ...
}
}
This would also eliminate the need for additional syntax for default
accessors. There is one problem I see with this however, what happens when
a setter is provided for a readonly property?
If this has already been discussed, please accept my apologies and maybe
provide a link to the discussion.
Regards,
Philip
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Clint Priest <cpri...@zerocue.com> wrote:
> Here is the updated RFC incorporating the feedback from previous rounds of
> discussion.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**propertynot
> getsetsyntax-v1.2<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2>
>
> I'm posting it for final review so I can move to voting on Jan 7th.
>
> Please note that the current fork is not quite up-to-date with the RFC but
> will be within a few more days.
>
> -Clint
>
> --
> -Clint
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
