Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64839
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c96OZcBfDEQDEwHVEG78HTirhKONXczEhZUvxQg10MNhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_girfbcPBb8rCV3bPNR2Hsd5gyRPB+VArCfqjPPqG5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9=HgRLHv4o=5dGkQzZPC5Q0tbPC8GD9AZ13Jwkr0pOcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4ED7146272E04A47B986ED49E771E347BB3D6ABCB3@Ikarus.ameusgmbh.intern>
 <50EC5F8F.8010703@mrclay.org> <CAF+90c96OZcBfDEQDEwHVEG78HTirhKONXczEhZUvxQg10MNhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:24:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMyk_AaH-u09zAdzdkih83BOdBWyxs_uH5ty52=rYDSURbweJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Clay <steve@mrclay.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340f6d1abe8a04d2f8532f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors
From: linepogl@gmail.com (Lazare Inepologlou)

--14dae9340f6d1abe8a04d2f8532f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nikita,


2013/1/10 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Steve Clay <steve@mrclay.org> wrote:
>
> > On 1/8/13 2:56 AM, Christian Stoller wrote:
> >
> >> But the way 'nullable' properties are defined is not very intuitive an=
d
> >> unclean, in my opinion. Stas has already mentioned that.
> >> `public DateTime $date =3D NULL;` // this looks like the property is
> >> initialized with null, but it does not show that the property is
> 'nullable'
> >>
> >
> > Much agreed. After instantiation, these shouldn't behave differently:
> >
> > public     $foo =3D null;
> > public Foo $foo =3D null;
> >
> > Sure, method signatures have special behavior based on a default value,
> > but IMO:
> > 1. those semantics aren't entirely intuitive to begin with
> > 2. property initializers aren't method sigs
> > 3. the semantics would apply only to some properties
> >
> >
> >
> >       public DateTime? $date;
> >>
> >> In C# the question mark after a type is a short hand for a generic
> >> Nullable type.
> >>
> >
> > I like that it's an established practice of doing exactly what we're
> > trying to do.
> >
> > Could we not just make it obvious?:
> >
> > public Foo|null $foo;
> >
>
> I updated the RFC to include the current state regarding default value an=
d
> nullability:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syn=
tax
>
> One question that still needs to be discussed is what syntax regarding
> parentheses we want to use if this makes it. Currently both set { } and
> set($foo) { } style accessors are supported. Do we want to keep those two
> with the new syntax?
>
> Nikita
>
> PS: I hope I'm not interrupting all those heated annotations discussion t=
oo
> much ^^
>



In the RFC, one thing is not clear: How to provide typehints for nullable
properties that actually have accessors.

Will it be like this?

public DateTime $date =3D null {
  get { ... }
  set { ... }
}




Lazare INEPOLOGLOU
Ing=C3=A9nieur Logiciel

--14dae9340f6d1abe8a04d2f8532f--