Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124549
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-568-g843fbadbe-fm-20240701.003-g843fbadb
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8c38ba28-1075-4fdd-8b79-ba2b83bca783@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f07bda0-48b5-479a-a426-10b64bf657b9@bastelstu.be>
References: <0a6a61cd-f203-4dea-a7f8-97e6b885c52d@app.fastmail.com>
 <b5c0be62-ea39-47fb-a8f8-ab6cd5ee3dab@app.fastmail.com>
 <9f07bda0-48b5-479a-a426-10b64bf657b9@bastelstu.be>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:18:23 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 7/20/24 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilij=
a realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting =
it for aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more incons=
istent, not less.  For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior suc=
h that a non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set.  Further det=
ails are in the RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavio=
r now have better alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz =
itself.  So there's really no point to falling back to __set in edge cas=
es.
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_se=
t_and_unset
>>=20
>> Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next wee=
k.
>
> I find it unfortunate that this RFC received a non-trivial change on a=20
> Saturday after the discussion has been idle for more than a month=20
> together with the announcement that the vote will begin shortly after=20
> the weekend. Folks should be given sufficient time to react to the=20
> newest developments. Personally I plan to give this RFC another read,=20
> because I already forgot the details after a month of not looking at i=
t,=20
> but I'm not sure if I'll manage today.
>
> For now:
>
> Is there any implementation of this RFC? The RFC text only references=20
> the https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/9257 PR hasn't been updated=20
> since December 2022.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Oof, sorry, I thought Ilija had updated the link already.  It is now upd=
ated, and the PR is here:

https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15063

Since the PR wasn't easily available until now, we're going to push the =
vote start back to this coming Friday.

--Larry Garfield