Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102334
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c_L7S+EB8YxdNNpNZ7NhhYwCbwEw5_TSnSwUNN-zLVvCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_L7S+EB8YxdNNpNZ7NhhYwCbwEw5_TSnSwUNN-zLVvCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:10:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6s+aS7Y0mtkHd8dhjbypoeQNPhpnqL_JjxO8ytOO7sqbWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004ca29056f1ae855"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Typed Properties
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--00000000000004ca29056f1ae855
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Nikita, Bob,

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, 23:59 Nikita Popov, <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals,
>
> Bob and I would like to present a new typed properties proposal for your
> consideration:
>
>     https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_properties_v2
>
> The proposal allows you to annotate properties with types, which are
> enforced at runtime. Unlike the previous RFC on this topic, the new
> proposal also supports typed static properties and references to typed
> properties.
>
> Please note that next to the main body, the RFC also contains an
> "Alternatives" section, which explores the problem space and considers
> trade-offs of different behaviors in some detail.
>
> Finally, while this RFC currently targets PHP 7.3, this is a large and
> complex proposal and we may not be able to meet the deadline, in which case
> this feature will go into the next PHP version.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>

This is awesome news! I skimmed over the proposal and it is extremely well
thought out, and almost everything that was causing a -1 on the previous
RFC is gone: kudos!

The last bit that is missing is the `__get` kink, mostly because `__get()`
is "squishy by design". Still, the fact that references are properly typed
mitigates the issue for my shady use-cases (I've got a reputation there),
so I'm quite happy with an implicit magic type check. One thing I couldn't
find is whether this magic check is also enforced when calling `__get()`
explicitly, and not via the guards in the engine.

Is the current development branch usable for testing something locally? I
can't see any obvious mistakes here, but I just wanted to try this out with
some of the more obscure libraries that touch property state at the level
that is covered by this RFC.

>

--00000000000004ca29056f1ae855--