Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103257
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AM0PR0702MB3684F2B7EFF1826F515BA940E2040@AM0PR0702MB3684.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <D23FE5D3-4C11-424A-9837-F5F838D4CDBC@gmail.com> <CADqTB_h1oWExsgmxR6RHbX1Eew2YiQTGjR2PgJc=4uW4qAJHYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1681263.Ri4PIu1jiQ@vulcan> <1476841B-EEBA-4513-8DD8-7ACE1F662372@gmail.com>
 <95a7902d-8451-06ee-debf-6f03c4fd7190@gmail.com> <CAF+90c9qzq+BspSH-UTOM5xhk_1h6XfGegpQLhndbGf31BhBrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9qzq+BspSH-UTOM5xhk_1h6XfGegpQLhndbGf31BhBrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:40:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKrzBTT3CNXuoesYju4X=B+G6ofSxKWKqCqCm+PHB+JYMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000070c3ae0576b169d7"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Typed properties v2
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--00000000000070c3ae0576b169d7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 22:48, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There might be a compromise here, which is to only perform a ctor
> initialization check and forbid explicit unset()s if the class does not use
> property accessors (i.e. does not define __get). This allows the lazy
> initialization pattern but is stricter for everything else. (Possibly __get
> in subclasses would also count.)
>

Hm, that's an interesting suggestion, but I think it might get a bit
complicated and confusing.

There's also the paradoxical fact that you can implement __get() to make
your classes *stricter*: public function __get($prop) { throw new
\LogicException("Attempt to access non-existent property $prop"); }

I think I'd prefer to leave the unset() behaviour in, and then:
a) come up with a better mechanism for lazy-initialisation
and b) come up with a way for classes to opt out of having *any* dynamic
property manipulation (no unset, no reads or writes to undeclared
properties)

I might start a thread to bikeshed an appropriate mechanism for (b) because
it's something I've wanted for a long time.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

--00000000000070c3ae0576b169d7--