Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114351
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 19:50:22 +0000
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Reply-To: Trevor Rowbotham <trevor.rowbotham@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <8k-0GSw3SzLqD94K-w_7CKXwcfl7m7Zf8yqom5f1F_reALxX8HLFd_KkBYO-pQnNDaEyknpdP7KZk9NI-mr-vl-sBzcfmS8HdkgGxRoTmpo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-Aeaf9SfkCZWC-NZ4dy+8HxE2V=7oa94TO2zkAf2kaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c-Aeaf9SfkCZWC-NZ4dy+8HxE2V=7oa94TO2zkAf2kaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property accessors
From: trevor.rowbotham@protonmail.com (Trevor Rowbotham)

=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90

On Tuesday, May 4th, 2021 at 6:33 AM, Nikita Popov nikita.ppv@gmail.com wro=
te:

> 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 propert=
y.
>
> 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), an=
d
>
> 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

Hi,

Thank you for the effort put forth in this RFC. I have a few questions
after having read it.

Will these properties work with the property_exists() function? I don't
see it mentioned in the RFC, and seeing as how the function does not
work with properties defined in __get() and __set(), the answer to this
isn't obvious to me.

The RFC also mentions that calling isset() on a write-only property will
throw an Error exception. Should a new function along the lines of
property_is_readable(), which returns true if the property is readable
in the current scope, (and possibly its mirror function
property_is_writable()) be introduced? Going through the Reflection API
feels overly verbose and error prone to find out if a property is readable/=
writable.

- Trevor