Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119254
Message-ID: <f08c75e6-896a-cf92-f2e1-01468c043c07@nunninger.info>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:19:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: de-DE-frami, en-US
References: <ec2c86fc-53df-4ef2-ae9b-5e5dc76fbb3c@app.fastmail.com>
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <ec2c86fc-53df-4ef2-ae9b-5e5dc76fbb3c@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Hsq0ts+yWhM=;1Vyf8eB5WuHNy7pg0Je2E4DajwU
 0PSL4uk+jkJfFCR1ze6xKPcIHzX9wice4aUBmxInVE8Ly3yGdOtFNihCfCMLktB+AU82GsXdb
 yqB9i4lzGgyaRY6a22zw/2Xs//qo+Xmh4Oyg4lJC9XaWZu8h+0cyVtGPRj0AU6i7fA1rBtySa
 NquhrDEGRtGsRHp3E20sjdG3B+wRt2mYU6Tzs0yXYe87aQz9iFwtiuz0jAP9TfNaZ/HwYaKFk
 2Xes5HDy4Jsj3etotof0ZwpV1p/fPMXGsvwCePRDdRomjfhUEV0YoGmBpufo6ycorsBsdEqgw
 iE9QTnSak4+P/ZqsqLCP+4j1YgJeHLDE9cpStXJjtkKslHZSboC49JnC+GYbz8dq+YMV0M0Qs
 doK5gg4mZ2WZ6dFbp36IknIcAsRKMOqfetWDns2gWzkNyoRVEzMsBVQcT1qn6pTi7SCnZLBmI
 T1jiP6gWuxmFhs+aU/j/c+LAp9ASwZAlBO5guOJ4I+8LDDT5KIqQdqSGhxPaOXokJTmQVQhaH
 to841flDTkrLwDj1wK8gsIQb6JBnT1GLUhR9znSAm0Rs6aoHxu2Sx1+RAQt4JHzxfMPIdOqgv
 Dd9ZuZ7+b/e1hsorRxh3NIe8njP5hJBVlUmMSsvaOKMOa/q82Hw/vjC3wKnruYAjWwijOZ7yG
 qdsJUM6huoQ2MnnJOpSv9e82Qv7Raca7ypuYdObsbw==
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Asymmetric Visibility
From: thomas@nunninger.info (Thomas Nunninger)

Hi,

I was looking at the current vote of this RFC and I stumbled upon 
Theodore's remark that the RFC feels unfinished as it can't be used in 
conjunction with readonly properties/classes.

The RFC disallows (for the time being) the mixing of readonly with 
explicit asymmetric visibility. And I was happy about it. Thus I didn't 
feel the need to comment about it so far.

The main motivation given in the readonly RFC was value objects. And as 
far as I understand, one of the main reasons was to reduce boilerplate 
code (esp. public getters). readonly works fine for value objects. But 
looking at entities, there is no solution so far. Thus I still (might) 
need to provide public getters. And because of the limitations of 
readonly, there was/is a need for asymmetric visibility.

I doubt, there would be any need for readonly if we would have had 
asymmetric visibility first. And (using asymmetric visibility) I assume, 
developers should be able to ensure that a property is 1. only 
initialized once, 2. inside the limited scope of a class, and 3. not 
overwritten during the lifetime of the object. I'd be interested in a 
use case where you would really like to ensure this on the engine level.

To go one step further, I would even ask the heretical question if we 
should discourage/deprecate readonly once we have asymmetric visibility. ;-)

Regards
Thomas

Am 07.01.23 um 00:37 schrieb Larry Garfield:
> I am hereby opening the vote on the Asymmetric Visibility RFC:
> 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility
> 
> Voting will be open for 2 weeks.
> 
> While we would certainly prefer if everyone voted in favor, for those who vote against the authors kindly request that you indicate why, using the second poll question or comment section afterward.  Thank you.
>