Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122625
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: <e6ba7a92-2254-4556-a358-d6e65db82e92@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAwdEzD-FjfwUVDoFyEBp+4RpQ8u5D6yzh4JsykM12TXqnRM0A@mail.gmail.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>
 <ec17bb5c-bc5a-40d3-81eb-27fc43577b58@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzD-FjfwUVDoFyEBp+4RpQ8u5D6yzh4JsykM12TXqnRM0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:16:30 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 4:53 PM, Alexandru P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:36=E2=80=AFPM Larry Garfield <larry@garfield=
tech.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 8:49 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>>=20
>> > Hi Larry
>> >
>> > Thanks again for both of your work on this, I'm really hopeful this=
 passes.=20
>> >
>> > Was there ever any further discussion/resolution/decision about the=
 use=20
>> > an explicit `virtual` keyword, and the related flag for creation of=
 a=20
>> > backing store? I thought it was discussed by several people but I d=
on't=20
>> > recall seeing any eventual consensus, and it looks to my eye that i=
t=20
>> > hasn't changed from the original proposal: i.e. it's 'magic' and=20
>> > `$this->{__PROPERTY__}` won't work?=20
>> >
>> > Is that correct?
>>=20
>> We looked into `virtual`, and considered it, but determined that it w=
ouldn't actually work because of inheritance.  Details are in a new FAQ =
entry:
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks#why_no_explicit_virtual_flag
>>=20
>>=20
>
> Nice that you added the details there why explicit virtual is not a go=
od idea.
>
> So, if the parent class changes between virtual and non-virtual, while=20
> the child class is virtual, the only tiny BC break will be in the=20
> reflection as we will see a change between virtual and non-virtual?
>
> Alex

I believe that is correct, yes. =20

--Larry Garfield