tags:

views:

53

answers:

4
class a 
{
   function __get($property){...}
}

$obj = new a();
var_dump(isset($obj->newproperty));

Seems the answer is nope but why?

A: 

The magic function __get is only called when you try to access a property that doesn't exist. Checking whether a property exists is not the same as retrieving it.

David Caunt
+6  A: 

Because it checks __isset rather than retrieving it using __get.

It is a much better option to call __isset, as there is no standard on what is empty. Maybe in the context of the class null is an acceptable value. You could also have a class that if the member didn't exist, it returned a new empty object, which would break isset($myObj->item) as in that case it would always return true.

Yacoby
A: 

No, __get should not be triggered when you're trying to determine whether a property is set : testing if a property is set is not the same thing as trying to get its value.

Using isset triggers the __isset magic method.

See :

Pascal MARTIN
Seems I didn't define __isset in my example?
ORM
Seems you didn't, indeed -- but, if you had defined it, it should have been called ;; and defining it or not doesn't change anything about `__get` not being called when you're testing if a property is set.
Pascal MARTIN
+1  A: 

It just isn't; you can use __isset instead. This is laid out here.

Andrew