Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120723
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-499-gf27bbf33e2-fm-20230619.001-gf27bbf33
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0c12f017-7261-4581-a1e3-9cc04fd37db6@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <641b1ca0-d33f-4f38-ae64-81b4abce24da@app.fastmail.com>
References: <641b1ca0-d33f-4f38-ae64-81b4abce24da@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2023 07:51:29 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [RFC] Property hooks, nee accessors
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, May 8, 2023, at 4:38 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Ilija Tovilo and I would like to offer another RFC for your=20
> consideration.  It's been a while in coming, and we've evolved the=20
> design quite a bit just in the last week so if you saw an earlier draf=
t=20
> of it in the past few months, I would encourage you to read it over=20
> again to make sure we're all on the same page.  I'm actually pretty=20
> happy with where it ended up, even if it's not the original design. =20
> This approach eliminates several hard-to-implement edge cases while=20
> still providing a lot of functionality in one package.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks
>
> --=20
>   Larry Garfield
>   larry@garfieldtech.com

Hi all.

Ilija was unfortunately hit with multiple technology failures this month=
, which slowed down final development of the hooks proposal.  While we=E2=
=80=99re pretty comfortable and happy with the design at this point (and=
 it seems most people in the discussion thread are as well), Ilija is co=
ncerned about passing it this close to feature freeze, on the off chance=
 that some undiscovered implementation detail may necessitate a small AP=
I change (and thus another RFC).

Given the timing, therefore, we=E2=80=99re also going to delay the vote =
until later this summer (probably), after Ilija=E2=80=99s had time to ba=
ng on the implementation a bit further to make sure there=E2=80=99s no h=
idden gotchas.  That will unfortunately push it to the 8.4 cycle.  On th=
e upside, that will give it a very long settling-in time so that by the =
time it shows up in a stable version it=E2=80=99s rock solid.

Thanks for sticking with us.  We=E2=80=99ll provide another update when =
Ilija=E2=80=99s comfortable with the state of the implementation.

--Larry Garfield