Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118651 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29496 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2022 13:12:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2022 13:12:15 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7191804A9 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2022 06:12:14 -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=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS29838 64.147.123.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (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 ; Sun, 18 Sep 2022 06:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947DA3200992 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2022 09:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 18 Sep 2022 09:12:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= garfieldtech.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1663506732; x= 1663593132; bh=bLzgm7NtQeFN52YYPD1ptCC2ochmggV2KhDThel5+Hc=; b=B 60oTYMCBiOd3PzPRsX2JPeQWU3EtxovFbxlQo0HYplkJJrIBaruElRd8QE6bRHEu 5gNeMo/f3zC0NKJTBaKmugjWIZxpg2o2OSZazSpRDkmqyAry+0U2HXP6EIihzBdh nhhYDa/usoSpYZoFHmcaNFK7A5H1xbrSF0vYdAAopgbSGhRluAclzN5SMVKdNZzl YB+qBreQrNowXT4zUzIfvd989wARBRDE6DfRDnGhSTmUdXwmmXIoaiRWFYF+oL08 EfvXSc0N3V8IyyES0BsETlHuxyt8TCVC5j4ZFc8uGZdPpG1V7n6226GKiQMSjHMN K0XOjPSZZL8e1ZQS++UcQ== 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= fm2; t=1663506732; x=1663593132; bh=bLzgm7NtQeFN52YYPD1ptCC2ochm ggV2KhDThel5+Hc=; b=KheMdtryZO4xuIZxweWDe5jaCCj7UkVHztFvQtROV5tK B13WxvyUiwj+P4TfPJJe8NwzoTKJh8TYojHHV4LFaXuWuNjFN/LaeAMRL4sK3iWE P+cPKjMzwPvl8BBVqL0VoPIP+n205ofsA3gjXpqYduZ6hEddy38lsnBEYkHQAQdx 4kPK1DmLWufyTuh4uyaSn6jIWDS1fV3dpUqX+tpi7UYX71pinEEOtnndtphNxzbl OY25mN6AQ8mkprGEPqkwXuGbfJWtljwZP/fDtewV5uc70Xef3lkmvXSAm1uKP4Sl 7UYTAG45i2qfjg9Cd28lsOREx5W+ljyCHo6GQKxDMA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfedvhedgieegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghr rhihucfirghrfhhivghlugdfuceolhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeglefgkeduiedvvdetffeujefftdfhjeeiveehgfff keduveektddvledvvdfffeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhivghlughtvggthhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id C6E431700083; Sun, 18 Sep 2022 09:12:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-935-ge4ccd4c47b-fm-20220914.001-ge4ccd4c4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 08:11:50 -0500 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Again: Asymmetric Visibility and Accessor syntax From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Sun, Sep 18, 2022, at 3:00 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote: >> We are therefore going to proceed with `public private(set)`, the same > syntax as Swift and the current RFC text use. > > It seems my previous email went to /dev/null. > > This is incomprehensible. > > Go with public(get) private(set) please. > > "public private" makes no sense. The Swift-style syntax should be read as "public visibility for all operations unless otherwise specified, and then specify private for set". Should some other operation be broken off as individually controllable in the future, the syntax will expand to support it without further complication. --Larry Garfield