Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129551
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e906b61e-b951-4eb4-aa0f-700e76dae6a9@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=L=YaZDdLmFr+paOVEotU1Lt6S4vAuU+HFTNAo0S0hSQ@mail.gmail.com> <d221df4a-cb0c-4729-a7b3-156b0db52ff6@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d221df4a-cb0c-4729-a7b3-156b0db52ff6@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:47:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOWwgpk8+18HzhsK235h35b2a2unKH=k+q9ch+Y+j=A+yWegcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] isReadable/isWriteable property reflection
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b64540645231543"
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--0000000000003b64540645231543
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le jeu. 4 d=C3=A9c. 2025 =C3=A0 17:39, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.c=
om> a
=C3=A9crit :

> 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.co=
m> 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 whil=
e,
> but here we are.  A strangely small RFC from us:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswriteable
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> > I also think the auto-scope is [NOT] a good idea. You state that 90% of
> use
> > cases will need this but my experience doesn't back this claim. The
> > only cases where I had to check for read/writeable were out of the
> > local scope, so I'd say 100% of my experience goes against that 90%
> > number ;) Joke aside, it'd be just fine to let ppl be explicit. That's
> > better than "oops I forgot to give the correct scope" bugs.
> >
> > About magic methods, one unsets a property only to have __get/__set
> > called. Existing code works with this assumption. This means we have to
> > return true IMHO. Magic methods are just generic hooks also. Which
> > means they should behave the same.
> >
> > Nicolas
>
> Well, the only people who seem to have an opinion don't like "static", so
> 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
> things?
>
> I think once we settle that question and the cooldown passes we're ready
> for a vote, though at this point that means January.
>
>
I can try to build a synthetic example but the gist is:
A class that starts with only properties and no __get() should be able to
move to a __get()-based hooking in a later version without breaking code
that uses isReadable().
That on its own should be enough to settle the desired behavior :)

--0000000000003b64540645231543
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0jeu. 4 =
d=C3=A9c. 2025 =C3=A0=C2=A017:39, Larry Garfield &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:larr=
y@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br><=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Dec 4, 2025,=
 at 8:05 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:<br>
&gt; Le jeu. 6 nov. 2025 =C3=A0 00:28, Larry Garfield &lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:larry@garfieldtech.com" target=3D"_blank">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>&gt; a=
 =C3=A9crit :<br>
&gt;&gt; In other news, Ilija and I said a year ago that we&#39;d take a sw=
ing at adding isReadable/isWriteable methods to ReflectionProperty.=C2=A0 T=
ook a while, but here we are.=C2=A0 A strangely small RFC from us:<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswriteable" rel=3D=
"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswritea=
ble</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks for this.<br>
&gt; I also think the auto-scope is [NOT] a good idea. You state that 90% o=
f use <br>
&gt; cases will need this but my experience doesn&#39;t back this claim. Th=
e <br>
&gt; only cases where I had to check for read/writeable were out of the <br=
>
&gt; local scope, so I&#39;d say 100% of my experience goes against that 90=
% <br>
&gt; number ;) Joke aside, it&#39;d be just fine to let ppl be explicit. Th=
at&#39;s <br>
&gt; better than &quot;oops I forgot to give the correct scope&quot; bugs.<=
br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; About magic methods, one unsets a property only to have __get/__set <b=
r>
&gt; called. Existing code works with this assumption. This means we have t=
o <br>
&gt; return true IMHO. Magic methods are just generic hooks also. Which <br=
>
&gt; means they should behave the same.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Nicolas<br>
<br>
Well, the only people who seem to have an opinion don&#39;t like &quot;stat=
ic&quot;, so we&#39;ve removed it.=C2=A0 RFC updated.<br>
<br>
As for __get/__set, that&#39;s so far one vote for ignore (Tim), and one fo=
r always-true (Nicolas).=C2=A0 Not a consensus. :-)<br>
<br>
Nicolas, can you clarify with an example if/how ignore would break things?=
=C2=A0 <br>
<br>
I think once we settle that question and the cooldown passes we&#39;re read=
y for a vote, though at this point that means January.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can try to build a synthetic example=
 but the gist is:</div><div>A class that starts with only=C2=A0properties a=
nd no __get() should be able to move to a __get()-based hooking in a later =
version without breaking code that uses isReadable().</div><div>That on its=
 own should be enough to settle the desired behavior :)</div></div></div>

--0000000000003b64540645231543--