Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125846
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:28:31 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <408b186c-89ed-4fda-b677-7da16ea91e05@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e57bdf07-ec83-4fef-99ad-8d9bc356bb65@php.net>
References: 
 <CAPyeZ4N8GMiLNVCDGxdofcy6txBhng_i2UKUGpiS5bnZ-YcYvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2A7CF24F-3AE3-4125-965F-C65431C42DFB@gmail.com>
 <CAPyeZ4MSc=Sw9UE0soCdBEnVAJ8wXHHhYqm88OffkvNLrHPxFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e966cf16-794d-4827-9a5e-b0de780a5b91@app.fastmail.com>
 <30a41608-a1ea-40a9-8d2a-c53c508cd89f@jnvsor.net>
 <a6cdfe39-2a18-40b1-8da5-f49e9e7a7918@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMrTa2FM4o6q8TXdBbuHfnD66vtqFBVL2Hw6_412Bf1r2T1QMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPyeZ4M0LDzPBTjT_Qa-ccB73DNatGWdARg-mKMO1T1XmnTzUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3648840e-5c73-49c9-bc89-105ed761e5c2@scriptfusion.com>
 <CAEZPtU4JzVvOkrGpr_LSrMHyVaFh1xTTP6DXgz1JwA=zPqXbyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9399e880-f51d-4726-b4fa-9833e82ef2e0@app.fastmail.com>
 <4DED696F-5A72-42F6-B224-C7A6B5AB658A@cmpct.info>
 <e57bdf07-ec83-4fef-99ad-8d9bc356bb65@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Asymmetric visibility is a BC break
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024, at 11:04 AM, ericmann@php.net wrote:
> On 10/22/24 22:39, Calvin Buckley wrote: 
>> After discussing it and thinking about it for a few days, I agree it's
>> not a BC break. Existing code should be fine, and larger frameworks
>> that tend to rely on reflection trickery and such also tend to need
>> updates for newer PHP. The expectations don't really change.
>> 
>> I don't think we need to rush a solution in for 8.4 as long as we can
>> implement one with the existing APIs in userland. As Larry mentioned,
>> readonly (and hooks) already made the previous assumptions invalid by
>> 8.1. As long as we can provide a polyfill and documentation (which
>> should also cover the readonly case in 8.1 too), I'm OK with deferring
>> isReadable/isWritable to 8.5. 

> Chiming in briefly to second Calvin's statement above.
>
> ~Eric

Thanks for the confirmation.

We'll work on a small RFC to propose for 8.5.  No rush on it.

--Larry Garfield