Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119196
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1185-g841157300a-fm-20221208.002-g84115730
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3d8561bd-fdb1-417a-836b-5146fca56185@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB4F7DA5-A526-4E9C-ADF0-31DE86B7368F@gmail.com>
References: <0854b030-c51c-4c1b-a7dd-22835a1e5da9@app.fastmail.com>
 <831b9906-dc0c-420c-b22f-8a0cc8a1ad64@app.fastmail.com>
 <454c5329-d5a3-5174-d09c-346b7d65435c@bastelstu.be>
 <8f9cf24c-ee77-4227-9b7c-31c631bf8a72@app.fastmail.com>
 <84647C1B-0F61-41E5-981D-B860BE1E53CB@gmail.com>
 <EB4F7DA5-A526-4E9C-ADF0-31DE86B7368F@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 15:23:47 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
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, Dec 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 13 d=C3=A9c. 2022 =C3=A0 16:34, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.c=
om> a =C3=A9crit :
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
>>=20
>> ```php
>> class C {
>>     $a;
>>     int $b;
>> }
>> ```
>>=20
>> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` =
visibility:
>>=20
>> ```php
>> class C {
>>     static $c;
>>     readonly int $d;
>> }
>> ```
>>=20
>> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the `=
public` keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the mo=
st controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Becau=
se of this inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly =
`public` anyway.
>>=20
>> =E2=80=94Claude
>
>
> However, I=E2=80=99m just realising that omitting `public` in declarat=
ions like=20
> `public $a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because i=
t=20
> is incompatible with constructor property promotion, as `function=20
> __construct(public int $b) { }`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }=
`=20
> have different meanings.
>
> =E2=80=94Claude

Well, it seems the only people who have opinions on the abbreviated form=
 at all dislike it, so we've removed it for now and left a mention in fu=
ture-scope.  A future RFC can add that if desired.

That should, I think, be the final change to the asymmetric visibility R=
FC.  Baring anything else coming up, I expect to call the vote sometime =
the week of 2 January.

Happy $holiday!

--Larry Garfield