Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119023
Message-ID: <41b024e3-8310-6bfd-f589-ebe93a76f419@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 19:08:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>,
 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <0854b030-c51c-4c1b-a7dd-22835a1e5da9@app.fastmail.com>
 <9AB678BC-ACF1-47F0-92A2-6F47AA1CEDBE@gmail.com>
 <EB7D00D3-54C7-4AD9-9DF1-B3ABFFF6B6B7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB7D00D3-54C7-4AD9-9DF1-B3ABFFF6B6B7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus?=)

Hi

On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote:
> To clarify my position:
> 
> * The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same restriction level than the get visibility.
> 
> * When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:
>       * If `readonly` is present, the set visibility is `private` (as of today);
>       * otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility (again, as of today).
> 
> * We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected protected(set) string $foo;` when you could just write `protected string $foo` for the same effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `public function()` when you could just write `function()` for the same effect. We leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or the long form is preferred.
> 

I agree with that.

--------------

As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate 
discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's 
clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section in 
the RFC 
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) which 
I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember 
an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the 
evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it 
still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already 
split into way-to-many threads and also the poll.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus