Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121756
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2b4591c1-f999-49b5-8061-67db816aa0da@gmail.com>
 <054a1e3e-f860-4596-83a9-9f557c6fd316@gmail.com> <4c5c9209-e797-49f3-84a8-f8c2371b34d1@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4c5c9209-e797-49f3-84a8-f8c2371b34d1@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:53:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPzBOBP0HuDD5sTiztABiB3pPNkuOAKhQH7e5HYh1Yv9W+v0ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Discussion] Harmonise "untyped" and "typed" properties
From: landers.robert@gmail.com (Robert Landers)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:41=E2=80=AFAM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech=
.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, at 11:08 PM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> > On 16/11/2023 20:41, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have finally written up an RFC I have been considering for some
> >> time: Harmonise "untyped" and "typed" properties
> >>
> >> RFC URL: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mixed_vs_untyped_properties
> >
> >
> > I've revised the RFC; it now proposes to keep the implicit "=3D null" f=
or
> > untyped properties, although I'm still interested in suggestions for
> > other strategies around that. I have also added discussion of variance
> > checks (thanks Claude for the tips on that).
>
> Thanks.  It's looking pretty good, and should simplify things considerabl=
y.
>
> > While doing so, I checked Reflection, and am unsure how to proceed.
> > Currently ReflectionParameter shows a difference between "function
> > foo($bar)" and "function foo(mixed $bar)", even though these are
> > analysed as equivalent in inheritance checks. Should ReflectionProperty
> > also retain this distinction? Was the possibility discussed when "mixed=
"
> > was introduced of using a ReflectionType of mixed for both cases?
>
> I don't recall any discussion of ReflectionType when mixed was added, no.
>
> My initial gut reaction is that both ReflectionParameter and ReflectionPr=
operty should treat "omitted" as "mixed", and just evaluate their type to "=
mixed".  It is in practice a distinction without meaning, or will be after =
this RFC.  That said, I also have an itch telling me that there are a few s=
mall-but-important edge cases where you would care about the difference bet=
ween mixed and none in reflection, and that I'd be the one to run into them=
, but I cannot think of what they would be.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

Hmmm,

> That said, I also have an itch telling me that there are a few small-but-=
important edge cases where you would care about the difference between mixe=
d and none in reflection,

I'd also probably run into them, and the only one I can think of will
be moot after this RFC:

- `unset($this->var)` to use magic methods instead of the properties
in some older proxies

Other than that, I can't think of anything, though that isn't really
important for reflection...

Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL