Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123565
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <caf753e7-99e4-486f-9983-dff83f8a40d7@app.fastmail.com> <834cb6c7-c6ae-4b59-b022-a43793f842a3@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <834cb6c7-c6ae-4b59-b022-a43793f842a3@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:33:18 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPyeZ4NuZfdVQOK=9F3Q2Nb+=_MqG9fKtg0XxJU_=CR1GbYqHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Property Hooks
To: Nikita Popov <php@npopov.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b37ed061a885bfe"
From: udaltsov.valentin@gmail.com (Valentin Udaltsov)

--0000000000004b37ed061a885bfe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, 9 June, 2024=E2=80=AFat 19:03, Nikita Popov <php@npopov.com> wro=
te:

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 18:43, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> The vote for the Property Hooks RFC is now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks
>
> Voting will close on Monday 29 April, afternoonish Chicago time.
>
>
> The other thing that stood out to me are the short-hand notations using
> =3D>. There was a prior RFC on the topic (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions), which has been declined. That
> RFC would have introduced =3D> ... as a general shorthand for { return ..=
.; }.
>
> The shorthand notation for get is compatible with that formulation.
> However, the shorthand notation for set is not. In that case =3D> ... isn=
't
> short for { return ...; }, but rather for { $this->prop =3D ...; }.
>
> This seems pretty unfortunate to me, and possibly closes the door on
> revisiting a general short function syntax in the future. Mostly I'm
> scratching my head at why this was included in the proposal at all, as I
> would not expect this use of the set hook to be common enough to justify =
a
> shorthand. The common case is a guard that checks the value without
> modifying it.
>
> Putting this to the "would this shorthand have passed if it were
> introduced by a separate RFC on top of the base implementation" test, I
> think the answer would have been a clear "no".
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I understand the short-hand
notation in setter hook in combination with
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions:

```
final class Foo
{
    // Before
    public string $x {
        set {
            $this->x =3D $this->transformX($value);
        }
    }

    private function transformX(string $value): string =3D> trim($value);

    // After
    public string $x {
        set =3D> trim($value);
    }
}
```

So it's kinda consistent if you say that only the right side of the
property assignment is replaced with short-hand notation, not the whole
assignment. And then `$this->x =3D` is implicit.

--=20
Regards,
Valentin

--0000000000004b37ed061a885bfe
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Sunday, 9 June, 2024=E2=80=AFat 19:03,=
 Nikita Popov &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:php@npopov.com" target=3D"_blank">php@n=
popov.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
 rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><u></u><div><div>On Mon, Apr 15, 2=
024, at 18:43, Larry Garfield wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=
=3D"m_-7467061742692404370m_-789518204270957520qt"><div>The vote for the Pr=
operty Hooks RFC is now open:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https=
://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/=
rfc/property-hooks</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Voting will close on Mo=
nday 29 April, afternoonish Chicago time.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>The other thing that stood out to me are the short-hand notations =
using =3D&gt;. There was a prior RFC on the topic (<a href=3D"https://wiki.=
php.net/rfc/short-functions" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sho=
rt-functions</a>), which has been declined. That RFC would have introduced =
=3D&gt; ... as a general shorthand for { return ...; }.<br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>The shorthand notation for get is compatible with that formulatio=
n. However, the shorthand notation for set is not. In that case =3D&gt; ...=
 isn&#39;t short for { return ...; }, but rather for { $this-&gt;prop =3D .=
..; }.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This seems pretty unfortunate to me, an=
d possibly closes the door on revisiting a general short function syntax in=
 the future. Mostly I&#39;m scratching my head at why this was included in =
the proposal at all, as I would not expect this use of the set hook to be c=
ommon enough to justify a shorthand. The common case is a guard that checks=
 the value without modifying it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Putting this =
to the &quot;would this shorthand have passed if it were introduced by a se=
parate RFC on top of the base implementation&quot; test, I think the answer=
 would have been a clear &quot;no&quot;.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regar=
ds,<br></div><div>Nikita<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>Correc=
t me if I&#39;m wrong, but here&#39;s how I understand the short-hand notat=
ion in setter hook in combination with=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net=
/rfc/short-functions" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-func=
tions</a>:<br><br>```<div>final class Foo<br>{</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 // B=
efore<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 public string $x {<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 se=
t {<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 $this-&gt;x =3D $this-&gt;=
transformX($value);<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 }<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }<br>=
<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 private function transformX(string $value): string =3D&gt=
; trim($value);<br><br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 // After<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 public strin=
g $x {<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 set =3D&gt; trim($value);<br>=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 }<br>}<br>```</div><div><br></div><div>So it&#39;s kinda consistent =
if you say that only the right side of the property=C2=A0<span style=3D"whi=
te-space-collapse: preserve;">assignment is replaced with </span>short-hand=
 notation<span style=3D"white-space-collapse: preserve;">, not the whole </=
span><span style=3D"white-space-collapse: preserve;">assignment</span>. And=
 then `$this-&gt;x =3D` is implicit.</div><div><br><span class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr">Regards,<br>Valentin<br></div></div></div></div>

--0000000000004b37ed061a885bfe--