Dear internals,
I really like the way Nikita describes the implementation. It is very
consistent and easy to read. At least for me it is.
I must say I'm very excited to see this implementation coming to PHP
Kind regards,
Chris van Dam
Op 20-10-12 11:52 schreef Nikita Popov
I would like to point out that in my mind `const` and `read-only` are
not necessarily the same thing. Read-only means that from outside the
class it cannot be modified; the internal class can change it whenever
it wants. Const means that once the value is set it will NEVER change.
Big difference.
If for some reason you need to enforce that nobody inherits it
and sets the property, then declaring a setter and issuing an
error or exception would suffice.
I meant to say declaring a `private or final setter`. Noticed that
after I sent it.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
] [RFC] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords
If for some reason you need to enforce that nobody inherits it and
sets the property, then declaring a setter and issuing an error or
exception would suffice.
I meant to say declaring a `private or final setter`. Noticed that after I
2012/10/21 Levi Morrison morrison.l...@gmail.com
I would like to point out that in my mind `const` and `read-only` are
not necessarily the same thing. Read-only means that from outside the
class it cannot be modified; the internal class can change it whenever
it wants. Const means that once
?
-Original Message-
From: Levi Morrison [mailto:morrison.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26 AM
To: Amaury Bouchard
Cc: Nikita Popov; Clint Priest; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Accessors : read-only / write-only keywords
If for some reason you
read-only = final set null;
It begins to be verbose.
As I said many times, why don't you want to use the const keyword? It
already exists and is pretty well understood by everybody.
2012/10/20 Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com
I had thought of a deviation on some of the ideas presented to
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Amaury Bouchard ama...@amaury.net wrote:
read-only = final set null;
It begins to be verbose.
As I said many times, why don't you want to use the const keyword? It
already exists and is pretty well understood by everybody.
Could you maybe explain where
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Amaury Bouchard wrote:
read-only = final set null;
It begins to be verbose.
There is nothing wrong with being verbose. PHP has always been verbose,
which IMO is a strong point of the language as it makes everything a lot
easier to search for.
cheers,
Derick
--
The usage of the syntax in C# is moderately unimportant. This is a
different language, and property accessors are part of numerous languages -
not just C#. That being said, it's not that big of a deal, as it seems that
most people are in a consensus that we do not want to to be adding any sort
of
Hi!
get() { return $this-Hours; }
final set NULL;
It looks like some unobvious piece of magic - what exactly set NULL
means? There's no obvious parsing of this thing for somebody that
doesn't already know what the magic means. I'd rather have people
implement a method throwing
I'll agree with you in regards to your analysis of Clint's proposed syntax.
In terms of your questioning the idea around read-only, this is how I
think about it:
Class A created property accessor $z that you can not set. Class B can
extend me just fine, but they can not alter that basic rule
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jazzer Dane tbprogram...@gmail.com wrote:
The final keyword is used, especially in sizable OOP applications. Claiming
it supposedly isn't used very often anymore - even if it were true - is not
an excuse to exclude the read-only-esque functionality in this RFC.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
I had thought of a deviation on some of the ideas presented to get rid of
read-only/write-only while still keeping the ability to maintain their
effect, if we so decide that the feature is wanted. Here it is:
class
Nikita, there appears to be a slight misunderstanding. You're initial email
was worded in a way that I presumed you were attacking the final keyword
entirely, not just final methods. You are correct in that many PHP
frameworks don't have final *functions*.
My pushing for the read-only
Nikita brought up a good point:
There aren't all that many scripts that use final methods, which could very
well be the same fate for final property accessor methods.
Due to the very possible unpopularity of whatever magic syntax/keyword we
could potentially come up with, we *could *alternatively
2012/10/20 Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com
Could you maybe explain where exactly const would be used?
Well const and read-only have the exact same meaning. You can replace
one by the other. So why create a new keyword?
Please
don't forget that we do not use your foo:bar syntax, so where
Hi!
Class A created property accessor $z that you can not set. Class B can
extend me just fine, but they can not alter that basic rule that I laid
out for my and all my children's property accessor $z: You can not set it.
I'm fine with the idea of methods that are not overrideable, even
2012/10/20 Derick Rethans der...@php.net
There is nothing wrong with being verbose. PHP has always been verbose,
which IMO is a strong point of the language as it makes everything a lot
easier to search for.
There is a confusion between being verbose and being explicit.
PHP syntax is
Hey Rasmus, please try and keep these replies in the appropriate thread...
I am in favor of eliminating the read-only/write-only keywords and implementing
no special code to make what was read-only/write-only language enforced. I
think the alternatives with final are just fine and good enough
Clint Priest wrote:
Hey Rasmus, please try and keep these replies in the appropriate thread...
And bottom post please ...
I am in favor of eliminating the read-only/write-only keywords and implementing no
special code to make what was read-only/write-only language enforced. I
think the
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I am in favor of eliminating the read-only/write-only keywords and
implementing no special code to make what was read-only/write-only
language enforced. I think the alternatives with final are just fine and
good
On 20-10-2012 19:20, Clint Priest wrote: Hey Rasmus, please try and
keep these replies in the appropriate thread...
I am in favor of eliminating the read-only/write-only keywords and
implementing no special code to make what was read-only/write-only
language enforced. I think the
I had thought of a deviation on some of the ideas presented to get rid of
read-only/write-only while still keeping the ability to maintain their effect,
if we so decide that the feature is wanted. Here it is:
class TimePeriod {
private $Seconds;
public $Hours {
get() { return
24 matches
Mail list logo
