Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122524
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Message-ID: <fa12d811-4ad2-460d-bc45-034fc111dd70@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:49:51 +0000
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
Content-Language: en-GB
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAJp_myUayeQ=irpFUG0OrUj=PjE3_mx395h_ARSdLmdyEB6_EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <790b5b4e-f51b-4050-a12a-5fa903d0568f@app.fastmail.com>
 <52C6F501-8E23-42D7-8541-88A22AD79375@koalephant.com>
 <36e90d8d-d275-4ce9-9dd9-1e2422c6d3a9@app.fastmail.com>
 <2fdf1933-b51c-40cc-8d02-31899b96c71c@genkgo.nl>
 <d4832238-7af4-4bd4-b8a1-8ab8d56d51d2@rwec.co.uk>
 <95e93cb9-3ab0-4cf3-8ec5-83e74c9dd607@genkgo.nl>
 <876aff9f-3eae-4d2d-8e3f-30dfbbeed49c@rwec.co.uk>
 <963f5cc5-cdb1-4384-b519-5cb15640654e@genkgo.nl>
 <58B82A81-8A89-4F17-B982-7FC36404032E@rwec.co.uk>
 <a8bdf9d6-d2ca-448e-8921-3a907e68f735@genkgo.nl>
 <b59c4e85-bede-4fe3-840b-b168d280fe17@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAGS0MVBTrVc-B7_wdvkRoAB7XdbSSs1tLJRoZojtaVtxH8r39w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS0MVBTrVc-B7_wdvkRoAB7XdbSSs1tLJRoZojtaVtxH8r39w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 27/02/2024 17:49, Erick de Azevedo Lima wrote:
> > It sounds like most people are just really, really pissed off by an 
> implicit variable
>
> I think that it could be good to follow the PHP way to mark the 
> "magic" stuff, which is putting leading underscores on the magic stuff.


I think that might help; I also think that even if the RFC offers a 
choice to the list, the final implementation should not offer choice to 
users.

I think part of what put people off with the original wording was that 
it implied $field was an alias for $this->propertyName, but the alias 
was "preferred". The reality is that we have a new thing that we need a 
name/syntax for, and $field or $this->propertyName are possible options.

To avoid another lengthy e-mail, I've put together some alternative RFC 
wording. The main idea is to switch the framing from "hooks on top of 
properties, which may be virtual" to "hooked properties which are 
virtual by default, but may access a special backing field".

As noted in the introduction this is *not* intended as a 
counter-proposal or critique, just somewhere to collate my thoughts and 
suggestions: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks/imsop-suggestion

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]