On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nope, the point is moot. If I've made my properties publicly accessible, > now, due to the ability to trap via __get() or __set(), I can remove > them and handle them. Thus, I can retrospectively change the semantics > without care for having exposed the properties themselves. The point is > moot here because the option now exists to enhance properties at a later > date without the need to drive the enhancements through a method the > user must call (the details of __get() and __set() are hidden from the > user of the properties ;) i see your rationale now, and yes i agree, using the magic methods does afford the ability to make transparent changes and thats great. however, what im saying is thats still encapsulation, just a different way of attaining it. and the other negative of that approach is having to bulk up the logic in the magic methods. i tend to use them to handle attempts to access non-existent params. actually, tho drifting a bit; i think the __call() magic method is great because it allows handling of what would otherwise be a fatal error when trying to invoke a non-existent class method. -nathan
