<posted & mailed> Jochem Maas wrote: >>>On Sun, May 22, 2005 3:24 pm, Christopher J. Bottaro said: >>> >>>>And what would make it any different from a normal recursive function? >>> >>>The fact that *ANY* attempt to access a mis-typed property would kick in >>>a __get() call, and that's too frickin' easy to happen in code that's too >>>easy to fly by QA in large-scale applications springs to mind... > > don't forget the noob factor - a noob could spend days trying to figure > out WTF is going on in such a situation..... we might even lose him to ASP > in that time :-/ I didn't realize that PHP had such an emphasis on the "noob factor". >>>Not saying you're "wrong" or they're "right" just that it's not quite as >>>simple as a normal recursive function or loop iteration. >> >> >> I completely disagree. I don't mean any offense to anyone here, but I >> find it kind of ridiculous for a language to restrict itself that like in >> this >> case. Its insulting to our intelligence as programmers. >> > > er whatever, interesting to see how easily you are insulted - I mean its a > programming language with a certain kind of implementation, which may not > be perfect, but I don't think they we're thinking of you when they wrote > it. I just don't like being talked down to, who does? You can be immature and poke fun at my choice of words if you want. All I meant to say is that I find it weird that PHP assumes that I don't understand how recursion works. >>>>Every recursive function runs the risk of going into infinite loop if >>>>the programmer doesn't understand the basic concept (or makes a silly >>>>mistake). >>> >>>Just saying it's an easier silly mistake to mis-type: $whatever->fooo >>>instead of $whatever->foo and have that escape QA somehow. >>> >>> >>>>Loops run the risk of going on indefinitely as well. Maybe PHP should >>>>disable all forms of loops/recursion to protect the programmers from >>>>themselves. >>> >>>That does seem a bit excessive... >> >> >> I was making a point. I don't see why recursion is allowed in every >> other >> function except for __get(). I think your argument is weak about >> protecting people from typos. If PHP wanted to protect people from >> typos, it should force you to declare your variables. >> > > you think its a weak argument, maybe you are missing the point - ask > yourself what the average level of php programmers is? part of the php > philosophy is about making/keeping php accessible. Again, I didn't realize was so geared towards "noobs". > I think you will find that if you we're forced to declare you [class] > variables that your __get() implementation would stop working they way it > does now... No, I use __get() to provide property like access to calculated values. There is no corresponding class var for these values. If I wanted access to class vars, I'd just declare them and then __get() wouldn't be used. >>>Maybe __get() should allow recursion and let the developer worry about >>>infinite recursion. > > Is that the 11th commandment? I have no idea what you are talking about. I meant to say, "Maybe __get()'s implicit invocation should work like normal functions." >>>But, today, it doesn't, so deal with it and move on. > > ditto. Do yall really think I have halted my work because of this? I just want to discuss it. >> I was bringing the to the table a discussion of the current behavior of >> __get(). I proposed that I might be broken or maybe should be changed, >> and > > maybe you are broken, hard to tell from here. Way to make me look stupid because I made a typo. >> you start insulting my abilities as a programmer and suggest that we >> shouldn't consider "moving forward" and just deal with what we have? >> > > I think Richard is a fairly intelligent person, if he had been insulting > you I'm quite sure that he would have done a much better job ;-) Thats great, I'm sure he's the reigning "cut down contest" champ on this list. I don't care. Like I said, I don't like being talked down to. I found it very unnecessarily presumptuous of him to say stuff like "without knowing anything about you, I assume you have made bad design decisions, painted yourself in a corner, etc". What the hell does any of that have to do with the discussion? >> Painted myself into this corner? Why? Because I think its easier to >> write >> $this->myvar than it is to write $this->attrs['myvar']? Its PHP's job to > > given the number of chars in the email you wrote you could have written > the extra "attrs['']" (9 chars) god knows how many times, Yeah, I've written more in these threads than the entire class that spawned them. ?...?.......? > besides if you > admit you can solve all your issues by writing the 'long' form then your > argument > [below] that you need to call __get() from inside __get() in order to > [retrieve > 1 or more calculated values to calculate the originally requested > attribute sounds bogus. Err, not following ya. The point is that I don't want to use the long form. __get() is recursive when using the long form. Its the implicit invocation that isn't. > php isn't perfect, neither are you - find a balance, get over it. Sigh. PHP's motto: "Get over it, we oppose change." (According to you and Richard). >> make my life easier and more convenient. > > I didn't realise php had a job, I thought it was me who had the job and > php was what I used to accomplish it.... Clever, I personified PHP and you pointed out that PHP isn't a person. (in Stewie's voice) Clever girl you are! (I don't mean to say you are a girl, I just thought of that family guy episode). >>>Obviously, it's entirely possible that your Design is the most elegant >>>beautiful disciplined bit of code since John von Nueman... But it's more >>>likely, without knowing anything about you, that you've come up with this >>>as a result of some bad Design decisions. >>> >>>Review your Design. :-) > notice the fecking smiley [hint: Richard is trying to help you, trying to > get into an argument with him is making you look bad.] I already addressed this. >> Wow, how pompous of you. Bad design, huh? Since when is it bad design >> to >> calculate attribute values on the fly? Many "cookbook" style books have > > and 'cooking' is the same as 'engineering'? (I think I'll try something > new with the cement today....) You're right, all those "cookbooks" are stupid. >> Speaking of "good design", Python's __getattr__() behaves how I expect. > > use it then? I would if I could, but I can't. Besides, PHP is pretty fun/easy to program with, I'd say its my 2nd favorite language right now. Again, I don't see whats wrong with trying to get fixed what I think is wrong. OK, all the subtle stabs at each other (and yes, they are subtle) aside, you brought up some good points about __get()'s behavior if it's implicit invocation allowed for recursion. Thats all I really wanted, thanks for that. -- C -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
