Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119030 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83873 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2022 23:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2022 23:35:31 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6EB1801FD for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:35:30 -0800 (PST) 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,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 wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (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 ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7402F32009DE for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:35:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= garfieldtech.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm1; t=1669332926; x=1669419326; bh=RCSubi062tnjWbGWlWOv4cDUp RCXrTj2N3loWHEMQp4=; b=EB6ZtgwZYSX6bahS2R+ZP4s0PEUrit0wYV02blssA 8964Qj1BtPK7yEJzP+dJO1ilFfThECBMqenLYTA5WLm5Wv2gGneuPEKU5w1GcF8y +du/y4DDzdJKjiji0AOrxWLKpUQaz/jrSaECoBXfboHUQ7Rp9r6CaA4dyv085wsA EKdEnPdFHQqJKuujxjBd8nkCaZwLBz1pspzSGkXrMnGbx8E8t+ekxRiEbm2fDOlw 9w8ICx1TrfwzX9V6TzwKA9Qmyi+zB/VU6hj7PPDjypurQTc0PIn3wgP4tUe7ayjS as6LLIjXTAXMHI/Ae/w2kLbDYs16fl9QIIwujxfHu64+g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=1669332926; x=1669419326; bh=R CSubi062tnjWbGWlWOv4cDUpRCXrTj2N3loWHEMQp4=; b=gcmIWb2WsMe/0AGwq a1pfmfjCM74oOcjNpXJO5RnYl3DsQqgRUfaHvw6n/oRFc6jM/3s5PKGEyJz1+eqm YkLsQUCwOp5V9ub+yhX30BtgPnkBDpYGhKZmn5ivzATnRL4Ru2Itittl8QOsZY/r GbOvMuKVRQwq3mknAEz9gPxlekdP/nfNs6ZLhidR3rTWt3PA0AVSyh6qfN40yXVz t56zlDycBYPXm7BJqpufgwJ5FJ9nRu0fKtJD+VAOip99Hv70BWa8aNDs1ARgcitn Tp6jB+IIMeiX5lO4Yxn4DuNKnaqcJ28uwTaal53huDG78pxw7zjYN2X92oKDYaVc +H/zg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrieeggddutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghr rhihucfirghrfhhivghlugdfuceolhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeggeehgfetjeehgefggefhleeugefgtdejieevvdet hfevgeeuudefleehvdetieenucffohhmrghinhepphhhphdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhi vghlughtvggthhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id B12571700089; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:35:26 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1115-g8b801eadce-fm-20221102.001-g8b801ead Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <52d1b41b-128d-44db-a912-31f415a651e7@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <41b024e3-8310-6bfd-f589-ebe93a76f419@bastelstu.be> References: <0854b030-c51c-4c1b-a7dd-22835a1e5da9@app.fastmail.com> <9AB678BC-ACF1-47F0-92A2-6F47AA1CEDBE@gmail.com> <41b024e3-8310-6bfd-f589-ebe93a76f419@bastelstu.be> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 17:35:03 -0600 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote: >> To clarify my position: >>=20 >> * The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same r= estriction level than the get visibility. >>=20 >> * 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 visibili= ty (again, as of today). >>=20 >> * We don=E2=80=99t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected= protected(set) string $foo;` when you could just write `protected strin= g $foo` for the same effect. Similarly, we don=E2=80=99t judge whether i= t is reasonable to write `public function()` when you could just write `= function()` for the same effect. We leave it to coding styles and linter= s to decide whether the short form or the long form is preferred. >>=20 > > I agree with that. > > -------------- > > As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate=20 > discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's=20 > clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section = in=20 > the RFC=20 > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) whic= h=20 > I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember=20 > an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the=20 > evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it=20 > still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already=20 > split into way-to-many threads and also the poll. > > Best regards > Tim D=C3=BCsterhus Yes, once we make a decision on this point, I'll respond in this thread.= =20 The abbreviated form was part of the discussion earlier, and the syntax = we settled on supported it, so it made sense to include. I try to highlight on the list any time notable changes are made, even i= f I don't always have a detailed changelog. Whether it makes sense to u= se the same thread or a new thread varies, and I'm absolutely certain ot= hers will make a different judgement call on that than I do. I'm not aw= are of any standard convention around that, so until one exists I'll jus= t continue making vaguely educated guesses on that front. Given the timing, Ilija says he'd prefer to not call the vote until afte= r the new year/holidays. Feedback still welcome at this point but aside= from edge cases like this thread's, I think we're pretty well set on th= e basic features. Baring any major change of direction expect the vote = to be called in early January, probably. Time permitting we're going to= also start work on property hooks/accessors, which is the intended foll= ow-on to this RFC. --Larry Garfield