Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114265
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c-Aeaf9SfkCZWC-NZ4dy+8HxE2V=7oa94TO2zkAf2kaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-Aeaf9SfkCZWC-NZ4dy+8HxE2V=7oa94TO2zkAf2kaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 12:42:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAsucqHbai0sa=-FP884ok0ggh12yyQc7sj+Lz9FBPW4Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ad12b105c17ebdb7"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property accessors
From: krakjoe@gmail.com (Joe Watkins)

--000000000000ad12b105c17ebdb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I haven't read it properly yet (been watching a little), but I just wanted
to say thanks for the refreshing honesty :)

Cheers
Joe

On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 12:34, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to present an RFC for property accessors:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property_accessors
>
> Property accessors are like __get() and __set(), but for a single property.
> They also support read-only properties and properties with asymmetric
> visibility (public read, private write) as a side-effect.
>
> The proposal is modeled after C#-style accessors (also used by Swift), and
> syntactically similar to the previous
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2 proposal.
>
> While I put a lot of effort into both the proposal and the implementation,
> I've grown increasingly uncertain that this is the right direction for us
> to take. The proposal turned out to be significantly more complex than I
> originally anticipated (despite reducing the scope to only "get" and "set"
> accessors), and I'm sure there are some interactions I still haven't
> accounted for. I'm not convinced the value justifies the complexity.
>
> So, while I'm putting this up for discussion, it may be that I will not
> pursue landing it. I think a lot of the practical value of this accessors
> proposal would be captured by support for read-only (and/or private-write)
> properties. This has been discussed (and declined) in the past, but
> probably should be revisited.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>

--000000000000ad12b105c17ebdb7--