On 1/2/13 6:08 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
Sorry, there was a typo in that RFC there, this line:
isset { return $this->Hours != NULL; }
Should have been with !==:
isset { return $this->Hours !== NULL; }
I've already updated the 1.2 doc to reflect the correct way.
Given what I mentioned above, I'm assuming you did not test this with the fork, right?
Just based your comments on how it should logically work (with the incorrect != vs !==?)
One last thing about that, the isset/unset with $this->Hours calls the getter to retrieve
the $this->Hours value, so it behaves as your example below indicates.
The RFC says, "only the accessors themselves may directly access the shadowed property." I read that as:
Within get, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within set, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within isset, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within unset, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
But you seem to imply:
Within get, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within set, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within isset, $this->Hours is accessed via __getHours()/__setHours().
Within unset, $this->Hours is accessed via __getHours()/__setHours().
So really the default implementations behave like this:
isset { return $this->__getHours() !== NULL; }
unset { $this->__setHours(NULL); }
I think the RFC should be much clearer about what property access actually means within each accessor method, as I expect users to be very surprised by this behavior.
This is also looks like it could lead to surprises:
Within get, $this->Hours is the raw shadowed property.
Within get, parent::$Hours is accessed via parent::__getHours()/parent::__setHours().
Also, is there no way to access the shadow property within isset/unset? If not, is there a good reason to not allow it?
Also, do/should multiple property accessors interact? Consider:
class Foo {
public $a {
get { $this->a = 1; return 2; }
}
public $b {
get { return $this->a; }
}
}
$foo = new Foo;
$foo->a; // 2 (but shadowed property is 1)
$foo->b; // 1 or 2?
Steve Clay
--
http://www.mrclay.org/