Posted by Steve on 04/23/07 13:13

"Vince Morgan" <vinhar@REMOVEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:462ca99b$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
| news:VRNWh.43$Pi6.30@newsfe04.lga...
| >
| > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar@REMOVEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:462b2b63$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > |
| > | "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > | news:PI-dnRXMkqxCwLTbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > | > Vince Morgan wrote:
| > | > > "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
| > | > > news:zGbWh.1456$go5.566@newsfe12.lga...
| > | > > You are undoubtedly aware that this has to be the most
misunderstood
| > | > > behaviour in all of php. Perhaps in all programing in all
| languages!!
| > | The
| > | > > number of posts I've read in the last few hours that clearly
| > | misunderstand
| > | > > _set() and __get() is astonishing! And all I've gleened from them
| was
| > | > > further misunderstanding. Cant blame them realy. You have been
| trying
| > | to
| > | > > hammer the point home but the nails have just kept bending. I
don't
| > | think
| > | > > I've ever been so confused about anything in my life.
| > | > > Thank you!!
| > | > > You have my undying grattitude Steve! :)))
| > | > > Vince
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | > Vince,
| > | >
| > | > It's probably misunderstood because it's pretty much a violation of
OO
| > | > principles. OO principles indicate you can set and get values - but
| > | > that you have separate setter and getter functions for these.
| > | >
| > | > Now you can emulate this in other OO languages such as Java, C++ and
| > | > SmallTalk. But it's pretty much frowned upon. Experienced
| programmers
| > | > in these languages pretty much follow the defacto standard to have
| > | > separate getter and setter functions of each value you want to be
able
| > | > to change/retrieve.
| > | >
| > | > Doing it other ways just gets into too much of a hassle.
| > | >
| > | > Now PHP has tried to implement something which really is against OO
| > | > principles (so what's new here?).
| > | >
| > | > I've looked at it - but I really don't find it useful. This style
is
| > | > not implemented in other languages for very good reason - it really
| > | > complicates the code, just as these functions do in PHP.
| > | >
| > |
| > | I know I don't have to tell you that it certainly confused me. I was
| > quite
| > | stunned when I first saw that you could add methods to a js object.
| > | However, as you don't have access to the source of those classes I can
| > | understand why some consider it a whorthwhile feature.
| > | However, in the case of php where you do have such access it seems
| > ludicrous
| > | to me to do such a thing. If someone wants to add additional
| > functionality
| > | to a php object, why not simply write it into the class? Treating
them
| as
| > | if they are compiled objects seems more than a little silly to me.
| >
| > oh you do have access to the source of those classes. you can
| document.write
| > an entire js class if you wanted to...using alert none-the-less. even
make
| a
| > prototype and forget whether the rhs assignment for a function should be
| > just the name or the name plus () ? figure out which is which and you've
| now
| > hacked how to get the source of custom objects.
| >
| > as for php, you can just as easily make properties and functions and put
| > them into a custom class that you didn't author. __set/__get would help
| > prevent this...if you threw errors in your object to detect when this
was
| > attempted.
| >
| > it doesn't matter, to me, whether php objects are compiled or scripted.
| what
| > should be important is that objects are able to maintain their
| encapsulation
| > (if the author chooses to enforce it)...which is what __set/__get does.
| what
| > php is lacking is the default ability to assign private getters/setters
to
| > properties such that:
| >
| > $foo->bar = 'hello world';
| >
| > would trigger bar's setter in your object's code. this is present in may
| > scripted languages and manditory for compiled languages like object c,
| c++,
| > c#, vb/.net, etc.
| >
| > but anywho. :)
| >
| I agree. I can't see anything bad with being able to implement private
| getters that are called in the fashion you've just described Steve.
| In fact it is very attractive to me. I implement operator overloads in C++
| as often as practical, and your proposed usage can emulate that to some
| degree. In fact I was a little disapointed when I first looked at php
that
| it didn't have operator overloading.

you'd think they would be able to fairly easily too. it's not hard to get a
function's signature. and, they are already giving the ability to just throw
interfaces in willie-nilly. putting some structure and rules around all that
would probably get it there. i think just about the only requirement on the
developer's end of things would be to stongly type a function's parameters
so php would know what the signature looked like...$foo->bar(string param)
vs. $foo->bar(int param), etc.

maybe in the future.

keep 'em rock'n.

[Back to original message]