Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119793 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63688 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2023 14:21:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2023 14:21:29 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDFF1804F8 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pf1-f171.google.com (mail-pf1-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (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, 30 Mar 2023 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f171.google.com with SMTP id l14so12614843pfc.11 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680186087; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I0B2lknqT5toiYwp6TRNsDbDt1fLINbeHiic5JrfdO0=; b=EPEtUyMFXgCFafy+aMUTMyLwYgH7V0QWrqLLRkwjHYKgyyX3v3blDXCyz/Vbq8MpLN Hbt0y8/d2VfF+dmlnTYpKOVjm8ba2smeE22oPGaNy9NCanNH3g4h4QnoHtWs4b/6eNpa QhQlN0mUTBk4+ydMNRl8fD5gtVoiZrn0ZniY6QhXvFy9ru7HJIF/GUWrgC4a8YKydBFu 2IFoUUhgF4yZW0TpdWdhKCVLKd3l0cddsAlzggtNyH9+Mrqmg8Md34OY2pJDKzpd0bEG GYUwdFLyJd/5TzNXSv2KNAB7ddqWMlJ+FxCqBNB3Pbhx5ZXK2yTPtMBbxCIckCd1b5ZW ygmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680186087; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=I0B2lknqT5toiYwp6TRNsDbDt1fLINbeHiic5JrfdO0=; b=54MeHHISpOtsRnlKiPOveVSlA+tFB/a1HgQObPD3N66hpXCkOzSjQs+4bPwoY1NAf2 oBIqNseqZVgzhP+h0NVDxddTwHR23JmQd+hmG9/ZQPaZ4F7VadZIHr0owWESn12HzBAW uIKutpFib2cQ/Pwh+yiV7q3RkxXA23ikRnKEps9Ywnvie13/al7wjgB2Z6KTtP5oJxoF M0F6y9hRhX6lsVXVCn2/ZaXiNQJgoBrtjLjPkgnpoR3RTPo7/u/yi3/wx/M1R2qgVJ8K 1wvUOm3g1794lfKpKM+RZTCJXvkW9RUFx8Mo4XLPjA5EQ7ajJAhzHw8CC1ZrTXXPtqFR eT6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fIbSpAA6qjiYGJH53zSCgNOWvADiB8C7BK6PwtFK4gWVnbDqfm YhBIDjUCcAyIpcf7917yCqnf56G+8SHN11X3aw4cA8LOxWA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a3P+y/oMVknJmF+EU8tZVHrkY4CYiL/VnmJUZoZG7giE36wtsATE0Zy+SV9fQaBG6w63ojZNfLVcAVZus2gGE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1995:b0:626:2638:5a51 with SMTP id d21-20020a056a00199500b0062626385a51mr12245677pfl.5.1680186086969; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 07:21:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <080d1241-0956-41bf-aaf3-d9582cfce3ef@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <080d1241-0956-41bf-aaf3-d9582cfce3ef@app.fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:21:10 +0300 Message-ID: To: Larry Garfield Cc: php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ded9c705f81ece04" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Properties in interfaces From: drealecs@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?=) --000000000000ded9c705f81ece04 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:50=E2=80=AFPM Larry Garfield wrote: > > This is a part of the "Property Hooks" RFC that Ilija and are working on. > It's not *quite* done yet, but it's mostly there. The draft is available > here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks > > Do you think we could have a smaller RFC that only deals with properties in interfaces that are just like what's allowed in classes right now, public and public readonly? The need seems to be: a readonly property in classes and a interface that signals a get-only access so maybe readonly flag on interface attribute is clear. Or maybe that can be attempted to be achieved in the same rfc and we fallback to a smaller RFC for the interface only in cases property-hooks RFC does not pass? Thank you, Alex --000000000000ded9c705f81ece04--