Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119268 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98981 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2023 18:35:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2023 18:35:19 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B151804B4 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 10:35:17 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,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 wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (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 ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 10:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD363200921 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:35:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:35:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= garfieldtech.com; h=cc: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=fm3; t=1673721314; x= 1673807714; bh=MZCEx5tyHoSdrCfffYKEy6kMNAY7PYCdn15sF6Hwrzc=; b=g knRnpXt9l09qMqMtiSgZqqu0KPw5gByDQBFNsasi+Mr07+55g7uN7lBNIvXnV2ir O01zhn0LxpthC3PpaHDZHCpywrPcnuE0rbQb9PsHaA8tazUbj0sz6yGCVRbBhEtT 9N5r90ScdnuoIKPiPxnl7XekQwIvC39i8wA7x7OFKSDw7m0239SbcQzAay60Hgh7 TZD4OnWdkJUd5GH16KIv/YBBzAnbRftsq1ahWlFYdZ+pTjRtp4OxcfcxGx6RIR9U ZeL35g03A85xtcabh8jdnaQxInmcESWlZg4xTZAGMs8rflJDaBsuoyRpYuxGU4S5 AyBjPUQB+ME4wNoq9jwPw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc: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= fm3; t=1673721314; x=1673807714; bh=MZCEx5tyHoSdrCfffYKEy6kMNAY7 PYCdn15sF6Hwrzc=; b=hPP1Kw3DHD6ffke0WNlUlLRo/bwPHp9HQQXF219SZyJC ztP9xd6OdpmLNk+zpZeNO8BzIJa34BcQBI2B/qIR6lPYCmtExGK9T5kCU7B0rcMU BNQvkL64UP3h4HiWWzzxM69H+yo2MLJJE7msAZ3vEn7jKCNeECnq+lAlBiST7htE jqG+MiAhEhQjnJsJ2xJis4mpAp6DQ3JjW097WdxuMJ6nx0h+c13wgCEL8B1FmU5i WYyyKlHcvYhWmM/MVGJWQHm5mBUrZQ2LCFnGoRdsgWMjtprRVBuMbtGuyANR260T QA5mHGmEYyB2M2bm9pW7R1Qf9UT2sXsXC/7U7sVjhg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedruddttddguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgr rhhrhicuifgrrhhfihgvlhgufdcuoehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhivghlughtvggthhdrtg homheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveehhedvveejledvvefgleevffdtjeekledvkeeg heffgfeivdejhffhledtudetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehphhhprdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhf ihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8A1471700089; Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:35:14 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1187-g678636ba0d-fm-20230113.001-g678636ba Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0233c360-892d-4b04-b2a2-5bd6135b4b77@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 12:33:03 -0600 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Asymmetric Visibility From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Fri, Jan 6, 2023, at 5:37 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > 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. Hi folks. Two brief things I want to mention as they have come up in other discussion: First, I mentioned this in my reply to Nicolas, but it could easily have gotten buried: Based on the fore-work that Ilija has done on property hooks in the last 3-ish weeks, we feel confident in saying: 1. Hooks will most likely not be practical on array properties at all. 2. That means if asymmetric visibility were to use hook-style syntax, asymmetric visibility would not be supported on arrays. That is the final nail in the coffin for that approach, in our view. We can have asymmetric visibility on array properties, or we can use C#-style hook-based syntax for it. We cannot (reasonably) have both. Given that, we feel very firmly that the current proposal (Swift style) is the only feasible syntax to use for asymmetric visibility. Second, Theodore Brown noted on the RFC in the comments section (thank you): "Proposal feels unfinished since it can't be used in conjunction with readonly properties/classes. In my opinion the issues with this need to be resolved first, to avoid the language moving towards a messy hodgepodge of features that don't work well together." We are confident that readonly and a-viz can be combined in the future. It's not a "messy hodgepodge". However, there is a design question around same-visibility and readonly that was discussed in a previous thread (named "Asymmetric visibility, with readonly"), and the consensus there was to hold off on that question until later. So, we're following the consensus. In particular, we're keeping future options open in order to ensure that we don't end up with a "messy hodgepodge." Without a clear consensus on exactly how that should behave, holding off on it and keeping our future options open is the smarter, more responsible approach. --Larry Garfield