Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122682
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-300-gdee1775a43-fm-20240315.001-gdee1775a
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a583f3af-4e6c-4538-b586-d2b4c118adde@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANS-=pc8HhX0X1FqpnU+WroXxTFAQGfhLuVi__gcue+CwXQ1fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
 <CANS-=pc8HhX0X1FqpnU+WroXxTFAQGfhLuVi__gcue+CwXQ1fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:03:37 +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 Mon, Mar 18, 2024, at 9:13 AM, Lynn wrote:

> In regards to arrays, what about additional operations next to get/set? 
> I doubt this solution will cover all the use-cases or perhaps even 
> over-complicate things, just throwing the idea out there.
>
> ```php
> class Test {
>     private array $_myData = [];
>     public array $myData {
>         get => $this->_myData;
>         append => $this->_myData[] = $value;
>     }
> }
> ``` 
>
>  Thinking about the other post about offset and containers 
> (https://github.com/Girgias/php-rfcs/blob/master/container-offset-behaviour.md):
> ```php
> class Test {
>     private array $_myData = [];
>     public array $myData {
>         get => $this->_myData;
>         append => $this->_myData[] = $value;
>         write_dimension => $this->_myData[$offset] = $value;
>     }
> }
> ```

Those hooks  may be possible; we'd have to try it and see.  However, they also wouldn't be able to fully emulate arrays.  $foo->bar['baz'][] = 'beep' could get very weird.  Those wouldn't cover unsetting.  Array functions like array_splice() still wouldn't work.  Basically, there will never be a way to make arrays 100% transparent with hooks.  That's why the RFC recommends still using a method for array modification, as that's already a very well-understood and flexible approach.

Fortunately, as currently written (append and write_dimension are forbidden), those additional hooks could be considered and added in their own RFC in the future with no BC break.  Whether or not they make sense or cover "enough" use cases is a question that could be answered in the future, after Gina's RFC passes.

So on this one, I think "punt" is the best option for now.  It can be safely revisited in the future.

> Is this issue restricted to arrays only? From my understanding objects 
> functioning as arrays are already by reference and thus should not 
> suffer from this?
> ```php
> class Test {
>     private ArrayObject $_myData;
>     public ArrayObject $myData {
>         get => $this->_myData;
>     }
>
>     public function __construct() {
>         $this->_myData = new ArrayObject();
>     }
> }
>
> // would this work without issues?
> $obj = new Test();
> $obj->myData[] = 'test';
> ```

Mostly correct.  Objects pass by handle, not by reference.  (You can pass an object by reference instead, and it behaves subtly differently.)  But the net effect is the same.  Your sample code there would run fine.

--Larry Garfield