Hi!
1) Currently __get() is only checked/invoked if there is not a property
already defined; ie properties shadow __get() (no performance penalty)
Yes, that's kind of the point of it - extending __get.
2) It would dramatically reduce performance because every property
access would have to
Hi!
Stas, you should probably do some research before posting such non-sense:
Which part is non-sense? I've brought you examples of Python and Ruby
not doing exactly what you claim all languages are doing. By your
definition, they don't have accessors - as you define accessors as
hidden methods
Am 28.10.2012 02:42 schrieb Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com:
Sounds like you're implying that the mere existence of a properly named
function such as __prop_get_hours() would cause it to be called instead of
returning the property.
Only when the property does not exist, just like it is with
Hi!
Sorry I guess I should have been more clear. The recursion would
prevent the accessor from being called which would allow the ordinary
property code to execute, thus accessing the property directly. I
This could lead to weird scenarios where the same $foo-bar in random
function could
hi Clint,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
That's basically what #2 is getting at, my only question is, emit a warning
or notice or not?
Technically returning false on an invalid isset() call could be misleading
without emitting some kind of notice or
Hey:
could you please open a bug at bugs.php.net for that?
thanks
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM, dabo avatar2004-...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hi folks,
I believe there's an issue with the SessionHandler implementation and
the way the destroy handler is invoked when using
Stas Malyshev wrote:
By accessors I am simply referring to getters, setters (and in the case
of php, issetter and unsetter).
I wish it was so, but it was mentioned many times in this discussion
that accessors should be accessors and that only the situation where
accessors are special functions
On 10/28/2012 2:04 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Stas, you should probably do some research before posting such non-sense:
Which part is non-sense? I've brought you examples of Python and Ruby
not doing exactly what you claim all languages are doing. By your
definition, they don't have
So... to be explicit here, you think in this situation:
class a {
public $b {
set($x) { $this-b = $x; }
}
}
$o = new a();
if(!isset($o-b)) {
/* delete files */
}
echo (int)isset($o-b); /* This should return false and not emit any
sort of warning/notice? */
I mean specifically,
Well I guess this and many of the other issues from other threads are
the reasons I had it written the way that it is currently (basically an
extension of __get()) but numerous other proposals have muddied the
situation.
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:17:47 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
On 10/28/2012 2:04 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Stas, you should probably do some research before posting such non-sense:
Which part is non-sense? I've brought you examples of Python and Ruby
not doing exactly what
See, I'm not convinced that everyone would agree that #1 [just some
syntax candy] is definitely not right. From the discussion here, it
seems like some are still thinking of it that way.
If they are supposed to be a 3rd thingie, and the only relation to data
members as we've known them is
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, JJ ja...@php.net wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Sherif Ramadan
theanomaly...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand there are people out there that don't read the
documentation and aren't aware of the difference between
curl_setopt($ch,
Done :
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=63379
- Mail original -
De : Laruence larue...@php.net
À : dabo avatar2004-...@yahoo.fr
Cc : internals@lists.php.net internals@lists.php.net; Arpad Ray
ar...@php.net
Envoyé le : Dimanche 28 octobre 2012 11h24
Objet : Re: [PHP-DEV] Warning when
On 29/10/12 03:02, Clint Priest wrote:
So... to be explicit here, you think in this situation:
class a {
public $b {
set($x) { $this-b = $x; }
}
}
$o = new a();
if(!isset($o-b)) {
/* delete files */
}
echo (int)isset($o-b); /* This should return false and not emit any
sort of
That's pretty fair, that last statement... As far as an application is
concerned $o-b doesn't exist because it can't be read.
Seems as though some developers are going to want to know when they've
tried to violate it though... I dunno. Personally I would consider it
error or warning worthy
16 matches
Mail list logo
