Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122504
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Message-ID: <d4832238-7af4-4bd4-b8a1-8ab8d56d51d2@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:39:07 +0000
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
Content-Language: en-GB
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <fca97d6c-d4ec-4000-958a-72c32beb8421@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAJp_myUayeQ=irpFUG0OrUj=PjE3_mx395h_ARSdLmdyEB6_EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <790b5b4e-f51b-4050-a12a-5fa903d0568f@app.fastmail.com>
 <52C6F501-8E23-42D7-8541-88A22AD79375@koalephant.com>
 <36e90d8d-d275-4ce9-9dd9-1e2422c6d3a9@app.fastmail.com>
 <2fdf1933-b51c-40cc-8d02-31899b96c71c@genkgo.nl>
In-Reply-To: <2fdf1933-b51c-40cc-8d02-31899b96c71c@genkgo.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 26/02/2024 19:02, Frederik Bosch wrote:
>
> That's how it always has been, no? So in your example, short code 
> abbreviated form would not work. One has to write a block.
>
>      public  string$fullName  {  
>          set=>  [$this->first,  $this->last]  =  explode  <http://www.php.net/explode>(' ',  \ucfirst  <http://www.php.net/ucfirst>($value));  // error, $fullName is a string, returning array
>      }
>   
>      public  string$fullName  {  
>          set{
>              [$this->first,  $this->last]  =  explode  <http://www.php.net/explode>(' ',  \ucfirst  <http://www.php.net/ucfirst>($value));  // no error, not returning
>          }
>      }


I think the intention is that both the block and the arrow syntax would 
have any return value ignored, as happens with constructors, for 
example. Note that in PHP, there is actually no such thing as "a 
function not returning a value", even a "void" function actually returns 
null; so if the return value was treated as meaningful, your second 
example would give an error "cannot assign null to property of type string".

However, as noted in a previous message, I agree that the short form 
meaning "the value returned is saved to the backing field" is both more 
expected and more useful.

The "yield" idea is ... interesting. I think personally I find it a bit 
too magic, and too cryptic to be more readable than an explicit 
assignment. Opinions may vary, though.

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]