Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118803
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1047-g9e4af4ada4-fm-20221005.001-g9e4af4ad
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <befd2a96-14a3-4b1c-b329-f1dd6f833055@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEsg9X2KMAaZnSEqg+36-zZ-p49awoVeuRUnMm4PYJSGYZ--KA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEsg9X0YvRHHKCfFfkR3uYmzwpFps54GvmD7dCcJyXv3nwio-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a187de08-9488-4407-9255-5bd57ee3daf6@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAEsg9X2KMAaZnSEqg+36-zZ-p49awoVeuRUnMm4PYJSGYZ--KA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 20:53:55 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Feature preview (formely was: experimental features)
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 8:43 PM, David Rodrigues wrote:
> Nice example!
>
>> You're saying that "public private(set)" would become available in 8.2.1
> (the late-December release of 8.2), but only in files that have
> "declare(asymmetric_visibility=1);" at the top.
>
> Yes. In that case, I should suggest declare(preview_asymmetric_visibility =
> 1), just to make clear that it is using a preview feature.
>
>> However, we could still change the syntax from "public private(set)" to
> "public private:set" in 8.2.6 if we decided to; that wouldn't be considered
> a BC break.  But once we get to 8.3.0, whatever the syntax is at that point
> is frozen and no longer changeable, and available in all files. The
> declare() is now irrelevant.
>
> Partially. As the usage definition has not yet been decided between
> private(set) vs. private:set, so this feature is not ready for preview.
> Unless the idea of allowing the two syntaxes to co-exist in this feature is
> acceptable (which I personally think is a bad idea).
>
>
> Atenciosamente,
> David Rodrigues

(Please don't top post.)

Well, the syntax has been decided at this point, by the poll conducted earlier.  But it was the only reasonable "otherwise BC breaking" change example I could think of. :-)

So if your proposal would not allow that hypothetical change, what would it allow?

--Larry Garfield