Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117482
Return-Path: <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 3982 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2022 11:07:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2022 11:07:24 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAE218053B
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 05:37:38 -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,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,
SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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: <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179])
(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 <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id n9so1828546plc.4
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc;
bh=RhhHBf6HQSl7WSsFcspHj9P2lztRc7m9PdKGw0kUR1E=;
b=oVyWz1aTeNdx/sfNqsF4f/y8fcekTQw/HfzClFgM9TpGKHWmFcmYay4dgX52UkxpXq
eiYUql1obj/AG2pztiAJ+SSq39rOYRna3bBk/RR9g6MbSi/C8tUUDgGgv6+2kFlEX8Ff
yYil8S78cf9W6h2yl2oYJmZeps1UguJthoSS9xWtdmB52rMg5P7QLSTsi1YDm6yLyy+b
o1H0UPppR8xMAjsUaGdEle469bJ/1rRaz9aXZ5JPMJa/GmuA95vWfpnVd9lN6bjZe1Mn
JByJRa3/zxFQdUzBf/aSTODHIZYYEkvW6Y7oQKCaGqQsU4qtQDFLmG8aOoimxMelV9Dr
dTFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=RhhHBf6HQSl7WSsFcspHj9P2lztRc7m9PdKGw0kUR1E=;
b=AQKOSmhNwBoW7IB1CyWQnoUrSRnfuPI6IRQeNoHnQviAp5RMrPKH2oGtI9xKifDKdV
KrkzNZK9hRH7/a4unokAvPtZ08XSTStYPSHqD8bXFDHxpCAmUnhSKzXQVc8j/KzvzRc2
osLflnkJ50gWgl+2+X+2WHNFlMLIVulXQco41ttfnwTCEYdF8JwmtlxMMmysIgldYGao
Ik8ogie/buQzWdXeOwdVqZEPnzpPMbWmjHGPwmAHMq+Wz/Dp9RcmXLbD880OV6bBPY2E
cymTl34ADTgYPWIO6GvKBBp0PpNmEPUT3eJWG9YhGK5yhODNVYoJq32TYekJx7F7RLwV
yH1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530H8rUJTQpu/TE1HL+HVZ9TmpFjrf6U95sziQxGFxgSGtnSSGyl
HNEvif5ZK9esuPkMs8Xc0tdqE/LVPrF+3bfFMdG6vJgjPAj48w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtSCxdGs+c3zAj3gFjABUn+dD3s+mjHn2x/ENr/DIkPvSv0lbdqiLQOoZ2HQPxg+bHPS2P6Zwl+QreWK2XXy8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:1db:b0:1bf:711d:267a with SMTP id
27-20020a17090a01db00b001bf711d267amr9660880pjd.155.1649248656297; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 05:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <624d81b4.1c69fb81.eae57.b277SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <624d81b4.1c69fb81.eae57.b277SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:37:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPzBOBMAUGHKkN1gFVYPUiMbNGz7Ni+u7tdS+EB2M-axugVvzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Undefined Property Error Promotion
From: landers.robert@gmail.com (Robert Landers)
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:04 PM Mark Randall <marandall@php.net> wrote:
>
> Internals,
>
> Part 2 of the undefined behaviour improvements, this time focusing on
> properties.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/undefined_property_error_promotion
>
> This RFC draws heavily from the just passed undefined variables error
> promotion RFC, and is intended to compliment both it, and the 8.2
> Deprecate Dynamic Properties RFC.
>
> The arguments in favour are the same as the last one, reading things
> which don't exist will often lead to the program entering an unintended
> state, and is likely the result of a programming error.
>
> There is a difference though that we do explicitly provide an object
> that is designed to be dynamic, and that is stdClass which is the
> typical output from json_decode and array to object casts.
>
> I would expect we might want to discuss special-casing the accessing of
> properties on stdClass and leave them as a warning.
>
> However, I personally think that for the sake of consistency we should
> make undefined properties throw across the board, including stdClass.
>
> We already have fully backwards compatible mechanisms built into the
> language (isset, empty, null coalesce, property_exists) to safely handle
> cases of the property not being defined, even on objects that do not
> have a fixed structure.
>
> I was originally going to include a section for discussion about
> potentially using AllowDynamicProperties to pull double duty, allowing
> reads without an error as well, but I do not believe that would be in
> the best interests of the language, and so removed it.
>
> Mark Randall
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Hey Mark,
This looks awesome!
FWIW, I'd like to see option 2 only because of custom serializers
and/or object proxies and also because:
> This RFC proposes that accessing an undefined property is rendered illegal behaviour
StdClass has *no* defined properties and thus would always throw. But
I also guess it depends on what you define "undefined" as. Does simply
doing $obj->prop "define" the property "prop"?
-- Rob