Re: (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation
31 марта 2012 г. 18:19 пользователь Clint M Priest
<[email protected]> написал:
> The patches are applied to this fork if anyone wants to check it out:
>
> https://github.com/cpriest/php-src
>
It would be easier to discuss/review your patch if you'd make pull
request: https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitworkflow#workflow_for_external_contributors
Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clint M Priest [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation
>
> Thanks for the feedback, I'll take care of some of these.
>
> What did you mean about the out of sync regarding naming?
>
> With the unexpected values to the methods I'm not sure what you mean, there are no
> 'expected values' to be passed.
>
> For the auto-backed properties it would be assigned to whatever value was being passed, null or
> whatever. For the non auto-backed properties it would depend on the user-supplied getter/setter
> implementation. Am I missing something here?
>
> Regarding the open questions on read-only/write-only I don't think they are strictly
> necessary any longer. The original RFC had them for enforcing a value to be read only but it would
> be equivalent of setting an accessor with just a getter and final although it would allow for it to
> be over-ridden. Are the read-only/write-only tags desired?
>
> I think the test cases that are present are complete, I could not think of any further tests to
> write or I would have written them, any suggestions?
>
> I'll update the RFC with backward compatibility comments though I believe there are none,
> anyone else see any backward compatibility issues?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] (*PATCH*) getters/setters Implementation
>
>
>
> On 03/28/2012 08:13 PM, Clint M Priest wrote:
>
>> What are the next steps to get this added to some future release?
>> Attached is a patch against ~/trunk
>
> A couple of brief comments from the sidelines without having followed previous discussion in
> detail:
>
> - The RFC appears to have open questions e.g about the need for readonly etc keywords
> - The tests and RFC are out of sync regarding naming, e.g. readonly vs read-only
> - The RFC makes no mention of backward compatibility issues
> - Did I miss seeing tests that pass in unexpected values to the methods?
> - I would expect a larger number of tests overall when the feature is merged/completed.
> - If these are indeed magic methods they need "__" prefixes, so consider the names
> __getter and __setter
> - I'd suggest biting the github bullet and creating your own PHP fork with your
> patches. People will be able to test and you might get more feedback.
>
> --
> Email: [email protected]
> Tel: +1 650 506 8630
> Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
Regards,
Shein Alexey
Thread (5 messages)