Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129549
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 10:36:43 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <d221df4a-cb0c-4729-a7b3-156b0db52ff6@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOWwgp=L=YaZDdLmFr+paOVEotU1Lt6S4vAuU+HFTNAo0S0hSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e906b61e-b951-4eb4-aa0f-700e76dae6a9@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=L=YaZDdLmFr+paOVEotU1Lt6S4vAuU+HFTNAo0S0hSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] isReadable/isWriteable property reflection
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 8:05 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Le jeu. 6 nov. 2025 =C3=A0 00:28, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.c=
om> a =C3=A9crit :
>> In other news, Ilija and I said a year ago that we'd take a swing at =
adding isReadable/isWriteable methods to ReflectionProperty.  Took a whi=
le, but here we are.  A strangely small RFC from us:
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswriteable
>>=20
>
>
> Thanks for this.
> I also think the auto-scope is [NOT] a good idea. You state that 90% o=
f use=20
> cases will need this but my experience doesn't back this claim. The=20
> only cases where I had to check for read/writeable were out of the=20
> local scope, so I'd say 100% of my experience goes against that 90%=20
> number ;) Joke aside, it'd be just fine to let ppl be explicit. That's=20
> better than "oops I forgot to give the correct scope" bugs.
>
> About magic methods, one unsets a property only to have __get/__set=20
> called. Existing code works with this assumption. This means we have t=
o=20
> return true IMHO. Magic methods are just generic hooks also. Which=20
> means they should behave the same.
>
> Nicolas

Well, the only people who seem to have an opinion don't like "static", s=
o we've removed it.  RFC updated.

As for __get/__set, that's so far one vote for ignore (Tim), and one for=
 always-true (Nicolas).  Not a consensus. :-)

Nicolas, can you clarify with an example if/how ignore would break thing=
s? =20

I think once we settle that question and the cooldown passes we're ready=
 for a vote, though at this point that means January.

--Larry Garfield