Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118392 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 10121 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2022 15:12:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2022 15:12:53 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE7C1804B5 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 10:14:13 -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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS19151 66.111.4.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 10:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C5B5C01A1 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 08 Aug 2022 13:14:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1659978852; x=1660065252; bh=C28jn2f7x7NU9bzjH6qSSIHcwHJ3 X1X3fBPAgUEBqAo=; b=3VqIZRQEI02lfMJ1wIOLa4zq5VhagEkHTGDXp5frU5RW x5Asqf6ZeJLy33vuLOAyRds8tixyve51S1EowFcyFP/Ldfk4+HNx8LGvtDHgD/qV ws4loW+EKjB3xBuSHdx62F6f4VTMJXMIflrfUb9XEqgluJy55j03cWPezTjEfqiJ ZsjAIZjv0tEqZ0fys9OCsIDLmE0y+k5N964xICKD7H5Aiacg8rjVjLMl2q1CS1oP qMzTdNsAmmLe0IFLCoNLVFhwQcGmSkcUrEwYKSntK2SvIl5gS98zGXX6AIfTZS6Z Z6yFmvhSH6aQur289Bds2yZMG60yKBx+wTI5i1P57Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrvdefkedguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrg dtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdevrghsphgvrhcunfgrnhhgvghmvghijhgvrhdfuceo lhgrnhhgvghmvghijhgvrhesphhhphdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfelhf dtueektdetfeeuvdetvdektdevfeevleevieehgfdvhfehtedvffeitefhnecuvehluhhs thgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgrnhhgvghmvghijh gvrhesphhhphdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: id4f946ef:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2297E1700082; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:14:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-758-ge0d20a54e1-fm-20220729.001-ge0d20a54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <36c8d4c6-2e3c-411b-8276-ea8162272d42@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <640e0f95-de30-4c53-48e8-818fdf408112@heigl.org> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 19:13:51 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0dcef3213f584a6297b1df5c3d747ccd Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric visibility From: langemeijer@php.net ("Casper Langemeijer") --0dcef3213f584a6297b1df5c3d747ccd Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Aug 8, 2022, at 10:23, Andreas Heigl wrote: > Your use case might not need them (though actually you are needing them, > you just don't use them as language feature but via the static-analysis > annotation) > > But when discussing language features we should always keep ALL users of > the language in mind. And if a feature helps in providing ways to build > more stable code on the language level then we should think about that > from a point of view of *all* users. I'm saying this reasoning (and the reasoning for the choice of syntax, as Rowan raised) should be part of the RFC. If this is the way the language is developing, it should be documented rather than being argued in a mailing list archive somewhere. --0dcef3213f584a6297b1df5c3d747ccd--