Hi!
I guess what Mathieu is trying to say is that this:
...is inconsistent with this:
This is because you're doing it wrong. If you intend to modify the
property, return it by-ref. Saying the magic "consistency" word doesn't
change that.
Now, I'm not really sure this is that bad, as there may be use cases
where one would like to return different values every time __get is
called. And, as I wrote in a previous email, there are ways to work
around this inconsistency by using return by reference, so everybody can
be happy. I think.
It's not "the way around this inconsistency" - it's how it is supposed
to work.