Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122622
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-251-g8332da0bf6-fm-20240305.001-g8332da0b
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ec17bb5c-bc5a-40d3-81eb-27fc43577b58@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87171309-BD28-4292-A502-93DC720F445C@koalephant.com>
References: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
 <a715dacb-9bac-4bea-a2bb-c623737fd81e@app.fastmail.com>
 <87171309-BD28-4292-A502-93DC720F445C@koalephant.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:14:25 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
Content-Type: text/plain
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 8:49 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:

> Hi Larry
>
> Thanks again for both of your work on this, I'm really hopeful this passes. 
>
> Was there ever any further discussion/resolution/decision about the use 
> an explicit `virtual` keyword, and the related flag for creation of a 
> backing store? I thought it was discussed by several people but I don't 
> recall seeing any eventual consensus, and it looks to my eye that it 
> hasn't changed from the original proposal: i.e. it's 'magic' and 
> `$this->{__PROPERTY__}` won't work? 
>
> Is that correct?

We looked into `virtual`, and considered it, but determined that it wouldn't actually work because of inheritance.  Details are in a new FAQ entry:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks#why_no_explicit_virtual_flag

--Larry Garfield