Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122527
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: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:22:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAwdEzBoFd2QWx5v5mVyK92RDbHtrNTe9MKJzsGmRSuwjwFV+g@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="000000000000fb35f80612639eca"
From: drealecs@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?=)

--000000000000fb35f80612639eca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 20:58 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.
>

I liked how the discussion and the RFC evolved so far and that we have less
magic now.

I didn't saw one aspect discussed, automatic detection if a property is
virtual or not.
Why not using explicit keyword for marking a property as virtual and not
relying on the detection?

Detection cannot be complete, and I can think if the property is used in
another method called from the hook, we might end up with errors when
extracting few lines of code as a method.

Since in the reflection the "virtual" name is used, it would be natural and
simple to have it explicitly as part of the property definition.

Of course, a virtual property would require at least a hook type defined,
otherwise there wouldn't be any point for its existence.

Alex

--000000000000fb35f80612639eca
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" clas=
s=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 20:58 Larry Garfield &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">larry@g=
arfieldtech.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hell=
o again, fine Internalians.<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.<br></blockquote></div></=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I liked how the discussio=
n and the RFC evolved so far and that we have less magic now.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I didn&#39;t saw one aspect discussed=
, automatic detection if a property is virtual or not.</div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">Why not using explicit keyword for marking a property as virtual and not=
 relying on the detection?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">Detection cannot be complete, and I can think if the property is used in=
 another method called from the hook, we might end up with errors when extr=
acting few lines of code as a method.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto">Since in the reflection the &quot;virtual&quot; name is used,=
 it would be natural and simple to have it explicitly as part of the proper=
ty definition.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Of course=
, a virtual property would require at least a hook type defined, otherwise =
there wouldn&#39;t be any point for its existence.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><=
br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Alex</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--000000000000fb35f80612639eca--