Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122452
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:22:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAO__Xv5s4EgLPCNmuwD7aaJrn7Fz6_TnLnxs3mCchxsPXyvP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee43240611f6a889"
From: fenniclog@gmail.com (tag Knife)

--000000000000ee43240611f6a889
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 18:56, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote=
:

> Hello again, fine Internalians.
>
> After much on-again/off-again work, Ilija and I are back with a more
> polished property access hooks/interface properties RFC.  It=E2=80=99s 99=
%
> unchanged from last summer; the PR is now essentially complete and more
> robust, and we were able to squish the last remaining edge cases.
>
> Baring any major changes, we plan to bring this to a vote in mid-March.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks
>
> It=E2=80=99s long, but that=E2=80=99s because we=E2=80=99re handling ever=
y edge case we could
> think of.  Properties involve dealing with both references and inheritanc=
e,
> both of which have complex implications.  We believe we=E2=80=99ve identi=
fied the
> most logical handling for all cases, though.
>
> Note the FAQ question at the end, which explains some design choices.
>
> There=E2=80=99s one outstanding question, which is slightly painful to as=
k:
> Originally, this RFC was called =E2=80=9Cproperty accessors,=E2=80=9D whi=
ch is the
> terminology used by most languages.  During early development, when we ha=
d
> 4 accessors like Swift, we changed the name to =E2=80=9Chooks=E2=80=9D to=
 better indicate
> that one was =E2=80=9Chooking into=E2=80=9D the property lifecycle.  Howe=
ver, later
> refinement brought it back down to 2 operations, get and set.  That makes
> the =E2=80=9Chooks=E2=80=9D name less applicable, and inconsistent with w=
hat other
> languages call it.
>
> However, changing it back at this point would be a non-small amount of
> grunt work. There would be no functional changes from doing so, but it=E2=
=80=99s
> lots of renaming things both in the PR and the RFC. We are willing to do =
so
> if the consensus is that it would be beneficial, but want to ask before
> putting in the effort.
>
> --
>   Larry Garfield
>   larry@garfieldtech.com


I remember the previous RFC. cant remeber why it was decline, but i hope
this
one passes, I know the PHP community has been asking for native
getter/setters
instead of __get __set for a while, since 7.0 was released at least.

A few things i was interested to get the idea around.
Was it thought about for the set{} for it to return the value to set the
property to
instead implicitly setting its own field?

eg

```
public string $name {
    set {
        return usfirst($value);
    }
}
```
Where the value returned in the set is what the property will be set to?

--000000000000ee43240611f6a889
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"g=
mail_attr">On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 18:56, Larry Garfield &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello again, fine Internal=
ians.<br>
<br>
After much on-again/off-again work, Ilija and I are back with a more polish=
ed property access hooks/interface properties RFC.=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s 99% u=
nchanged from last summer; the PR is now essentially complete and more robu=
st, and we were able to squish the last remaining edge cases.<br>
<br>
Baring any major changes, we plan to bring this to a vote in mid-March.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks" rel=3D"noreferrer" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks</a><br>
<br>
It=E2=80=99s long, but that=E2=80=99s because we=E2=80=99re handling every =
edge case we could think of.=C2=A0 Properties involve dealing with both ref=
erences and inheritance, both of which have complex implications.=C2=A0 We =
believe we=E2=80=99ve identified the most logical handling for all cases, t=
hough.<br>
<br>
Note the FAQ question at the end, which explains some design choices.<br>
<br>
There=E2=80=99s one outstanding question, which is slightly painful to ask:=
 Originally, this RFC was called =E2=80=9Cproperty accessors,=E2=80=9D whic=
h is the terminology used by most languages.=C2=A0 During early development=
, when we had 4 accessors like Swift, we changed the name to =E2=80=9Chooks=
=E2=80=9D to better indicate that one was =E2=80=9Chooking into=E2=80=9D th=
e property lifecycle.=C2=A0 However, later refinement brought it back down =
to 2 operations, get and set.=C2=A0 That makes the =E2=80=9Chooks=E2=80=9D =
name less applicable, and inconsistent with what other languages call it.<b=
r>
<br>
However, changing it back at this point would be a non-small amount of grun=
t work. There would be no functional changes from doing so, but it=E2=80=99=
s lots of renaming things both in the PR and the RFC. We are willing to do =
so if the consensus is that it would be beneficial, but want to ask before =
putting in the effort.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
=C2=A0 Larry Garfield<br>
=C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com" target=3D"_blank">larry@ga=
rfieldtech.com</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I remember the previous =
RFC. cant remeber why it was decline, but i hope this</div><div>one passes,=
 I know the PHP community has been asking for native getter/setters</div><d=
iv>instead of __get __set for a while, since 7.0 was released at least.=C2=
=A0 <br><br></div><div>A few things i was interested to get the idea around=
.=C2=A0 <br></div><div>Was it thought about for the set{} for it to return =
the value to set the=20
property=20

to=C2=A0</div><div>instead implicitly setting its own field?<br><br></div><=
div>eg<br><br>```<br></div><div>public string $name {<br></div><div>=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0 set {<br></div><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return us=
first($value); <br></div><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 }<br></div><div>}<br>```<b=
r></div><div>Where the value returned in the set is what the property will =
be set to?<br></div></div></div>

--000000000000ee43240611f6a889--