Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115866 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49018 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2021 19:23:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2021 19:23:02 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C731804B3 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com [209.85.167.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id p38so9452118lfa.0 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:57:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JHPrbGOwxQ2lRoKPuDpycu/8xB6pxKLWnmqPh6zGNEc=; b=Z7kVDHuK4T6u35UafBO+oxJAoMCPWa8uPiQfFd+gsATAzajhfyECjStMfHXdPiX5/S ObJwFyJnM53bSARbOVVnRSIJPPQrT+Oooks2Ilvlf3sNwjADxtJ5gUWIz2Co1B1JKFdK f07LCod02IJbRFzxfTdpEm8TvadLekBJT77lzoSZ08J0FDfWX9L8WFHfFjiVk8XL6swE vdEuom8GeBR+QnXdu7lKNhzWMm3LgVvjiqHWaSLQskXvOIvjuA3WZ3bRlpaNhSEAYW+h Fa4V3XoDtOEn09wEjVcWBH8psLqaZy3U4cLrjVCK1QRx3aCSZRgp2P5QfCn6EkhScEja yuxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JHPrbGOwxQ2lRoKPuDpycu/8xB6pxKLWnmqPh6zGNEc=; b=rdRjPAW9/ULch3RJoJRUaoVh+5UZSllRbsBp2UPj69rNwL3oR49fAWPdLJ8hKV/XoB l0yHeeXeqnvOq1LiWrHV/uvxXpxv5DYPSIK5SNHq+xo0G3xbHs19Hj79qXmVbnm1VxAl 2KsOOyxtRrMYw91oCNt3xih5jR9566tEdlCgB4oVeS1m1lmOKT+RLoObZiYpYKKOjTkf 1XGoTeCJ6BpBTYy3JKppH+UPZCXTBraYwuIb8RyZDS/VMn1ZtIowLfSpXdGqbyngaZOj sUJGes9G2aJ3tzFqcBNY15BqOvuIZODA1c1dnluFrNCMw+Gf6BNGi7jSG86M6E7Sw0Bo UTzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MPuWa6aNEOQ7Vllpx80jxhQTKcC5Hf0JxuSEb8kr4wIM2fIj9 z2OPE+JSLThncol7mKw/JP6fThBBCud/SPet+CJ4/DS1ZD4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzx5j5S0UyDhopqfh4iA1wNvnEYgXsWkLDd+iKLIoK+GVsrsusXZzqibK18xvkLN61Kyr73Y9L0ri/apoLImPs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2392:: with SMTP id c18mr4003995lfv.485.1630007850391; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <775dc98a-b3c5-d498-71f7-9f19ff891f29@telia.com> <6127ded1.1c69fb81.6eaae.173cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <6127ded1.1c69fb81.6eaae.173cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:57:14 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ben Ramsey Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e75f3305ca7bc613" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: 8.1 / Exception / Property Type / Backwards compatbility From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000e75f3305ca7bc613 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Ben Ramsey wrote: > Nikita Popov wrote on 8/26/21 09:57: > > Right. I at least do not plan to address this issue. If you take a > > protected property and publicly re-export it, then any compatibility > issues > > are on you. > > This does not appear to affect only cases where one is re-exporting a > protected property as public. > > Exception protected properties without type hints: > > * PHP <= 8.0 - https://3v4l.org/GWmrk > * PHP 8.1 - https://3v4l.org/GWmrk/rfc > > > Exception protected properties with type hints: > > * PHP <= 8.0 - https://3v4l.org/UX1Pa > * PHP 8.1 - https://3v4l.org/UX1Pa/rfc > These are not really meaningful examples, because you could simply not redeclare the property at all and assign it in the constructor instead (or preferably, let the parent constructor assign it). That's the normal way to extend exceptions. What made the original case interesting is that the property redeclaration isn't immediately redundant there, because it changes visibility. Regards, Nikita --000000000000e75f3305ca7bc613--