Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65111
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50FECA4E.6080408@lerdorf.com>
References: <50F840F4.7080704@zerocue.com>
	<50FE7579.1010409@zerocue.com>
	<50FECA4E.6080408@lerdorf.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:27:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c9c9Xxxz1xmkpHviFYArCNWSJ6wuzB5-+jGNi3wqmqa6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee29015e9e204d3f3d1f1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Property Accessors for 5.5
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--bcaec54ee29015e9e204d3f3d1f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:

> On 01/22/2013 03:18 AM, Clint Priest wrote:
> >
> > On 1/17/2013 12:20 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
> >> I'm happy to say that Property Accessors is ready for a vote for
> >> inclusion in 5.5 release.
> >>
> >> Nikita and I (as well as Stas a bit) have all been working hard to
> >> make this happen for 5.5, voting and the specifications are here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2#voting
> >>
> >
> > For those that have voted against this proposal, are there any
> > clarifications that can be made or questions answered?
> >
> > There seems to be a lot of userland support for this proposal from
> > people who don't have voting rights.
>
> The simple explanation from me is that the ROI isn't there on this one.
> It adds a lot of code complexity for very little return. Yes, it saves a
> couple of lines of boilerplate code for a few people, but the cost is
> high in terms of ongoing maintenance and potential issues for opcode
> caches as well. If you look at the split in voting you will notice it is
> pretty much split along the lines of the people who have to maintain
> this code vs. the people who would like a shiny new feature.
>

Rasmus, could you maybe point out more specifically what issues you see
with the implementation (this also applies to all the other people who
voted "no" due to maintenance concerns)? It doesn't look like the RFC will
make it this time around, but it would be nice to know what issues there
are for next time. (If someone wants to give inline-comments on the
implementation, here's the PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/263)

Thanks,
Nikita

--bcaec54ee29015e9e204d3f3d1f1--