Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109625
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP=4hC+9duSVcREvwOD3jZv+5fmqQzzR=UEraw4Yr6P+b+FfaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <90F4B395-F010-4196-9C40-7896D4F3F2F4@gmail.com> <CAP=4hC+moKGF-XyGuaYEzc54tJb++5bUxCpF-8vXxsPS+NHuUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP=4hCLH9PrkQxuF=m154jA2+d56eTXTfmtsCfjxOcBiR4pmsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP=4hCLLY5THWuR1h-hiTQ4sW0Nb1Wv1+EYcSBhmaTYU6x7MOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP=4hCLLY5THWuR1h-hiTQ4sW0Nb1Wv1+EYcSBhmaTYU6x7MOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:24:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOWwgpmXfzDw4yWUEme_DtuiMitZf6vqYVm57F_nxYAAHPyORA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Caruso <carusogabriel34@gmail.com>
Cc: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d7e8e605a3401ede"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Ensure correct magic methods'
 signatures when typed
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--000000000000d7e8e605a3401ede
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello Gabriel,

>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/magic-methods-signature
>
> RFC and implementation have been updated.
>

There are a few things I don't understand from the RFC, let me list from
the examples.

> This RFC proposes to introduce the following signatures checks when magic
methods are typed:

My general question is: what does this mean exactly?


> /** @return mixed */
> Foo::__call(string $name, array $arguments);

> /** @return mixed */
> Foo::__callStatic(string $name, array $arguments);

> /** @return mixed */
> Foo::__get(string $name);


Does this mean we won't be allowed to declare __call($name, $arguments);?

This looks against LSP to me.


> Foo::__clone(): void;

> /** @param mixed $args */
> Foo::__construct($args): void;

> Foo::__destruct(): void;

Is void going to be mandatory now? This should be specified in the RFC I
think.

If it's about to allow void where it wasn't allowed, I'm personally not
convinced it's a good idea to open one more code-style war on this topic.
When there is only one way to declare something, there is no need to come
to any agreement about the code style. That's a win.


> Foo::__isset(string $name): bool;
> Foo::__unset(string $name): void;

Same comment about LSP, but also about the type: isn't it allowed to have
integers as keys? How does this play with strict_type and array access?


> /** @param mixed $value */
> Foo::__set(string $name, $value): void;


Is the return now going to be mandatory?

And the BIG question: is all this worth the BC break?

Thanks,

Nicolas

--000000000000d7e8e605a3401ede--