Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64667
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain toolpark.com from 195.49.42.12 cause and error)
Message-ID: <50EBEC0E.50908@toolpark.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:51:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAF+90c_girfbcPBb8rCV3bPNR2Hsd5gyRPB+VArCfqjPPqG5DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c9=HgRLHv4o=5dGkQzZPC5Q0tbPC8GD9AZ13Jwkr0pOcw@mail.gmail.com> <4ED7146272E04A47B986ED49E771E347BB3D6ABCB3@Ikarus.ameusgmbh.intern> <50EBD4C4.8090703@toolpark.com> <CAMyk_AbPyNQ8D_JW0FsHE6WiYs5dj=LwQgqZ691eFVFne+Hmow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMyk_AbPyNQ8D_JW0FsHE6WiYs5dj=LwQgqZ691eFVFne+Hmow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors
From: lars.schultz@toolpark.com (Lars Schultz)

Am 08.01.2013 10:03, schrieb Lazare Inepologlou:
> The fact is that the existing syntax for nullable type hinting has its own
> problems. For example, this is not possible:
> function foo( Bar $bar = null , $mandatory ) { ... }

Sure it's possible;) I did not get a syntax error for that...I even use 
that case many times in my code exactly for that purpose, to allow $bar 
to be null but require $mandatory to be defined explicitly.

> I would love to have the question mark syntax for both properties and
> argument type hinting.

Introducing a BC-Break and/or yet another syntax? Is that worth it?

> This does not apply in all cases. Here is an example of a property that is
> guaranteed not to be null:
>
> class Foo {
>    private $_date;
>    public DateTime $date {
>      get {
>        return is_null($date) ? new DateTime() : $this->date;
>      }
>      set {
>        $this->date = $value;
>      }
>    }
> }

The property is still null;) Only the return value of the getter will 
not be null. But that's not the issue, is it? I am not arguing the case 
of NOT allowing null, Stas wanted to always allow null because of this 
reason and not have a special syntax to declare this.