Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129638
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 19:02:39 +0100
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] isReadable/isWriteable property reflection
In-Reply-To: <09b0365c-9708-4c38-8004-5b1ca693ad8c@app.fastmail.com>
References: <e906b61e-b951-4eb4-aa0f-700e76dae6a9@app.fastmail.com>
 <09b0365c-9708-4c38-8004-5b1ca693ad8c@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <dbf4a553b5de5188d4bb33befe194f8c@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-12-17 16:26, schrieb Larry Garfield:
> * We have decided on an approach for magic methods.  The updated RFC 
> text explains it in more detail, but in short, "if __isset(), then use 
> that to determine readable.  Otherwise, __get() implies readable.  
> __set() implies writeable."  That should handle the use cases Nicolas 
> was interested in.

That works for me. I didn't feel particularly strongly either way.

> We consider the RFC feature complete at this point.  Baring any further 
> substantive discussion, expect a vote in January after the blackout 
> period ends.

I don't have further comments about the semantics themselves, but have 
one further clarification question:

>  The property has not been unset(). If it has, follow the same __isset 
> check as above

Should this read “the same __get check” instead?

And one note with regard to process: Don't forget to add a link to the 
discussion (https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129101) to the RFC.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus