Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88112
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7346C557-93DD-4E12-8E06-651D6A81A715@gmail.com>
References: <20150827173432.GA71000@3006.local>
	<28.A5.59944.15C7CE55@pb1.pair.com>
	<55ED368C.5010209@gmail.com>
	<C0.41.34134.5C2DDE55@pb1.pair.com>
	<7346C557-93DD-4E12-8E06-651D6A81A715@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:23:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CAObuZduJY772YRW=SZchMOwwBRro720cNGKD6i+po2SW6wGgjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xinchen Hui <laruence@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d8400ce78c1051f323785
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Concept] Class Constant visibility
 modifiersin PHP 7.1+
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--089e010d8400ce78c1051f323785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Xinchen Hui <laruence@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 8, 2015, at 02:09, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stas,
> >
> > Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >>
> >> Private and protected methods and properties are private for a reason -
> >> they may be radically changed or gone when the code is changing, and
> >> thus external code should not rely on them, and the way to ensure it is
> >> to deny that code access to them. However, I have hard time seeing how
> >> that would apply to constants - they shouldn't really change,
> >
> > Why not? A constant's value doesn't change at runtime, but nothing stops
> you changing the value in a new version. A real-world example for you:
> phpng changed the values of the IS_* constants in the Zend Engine.
> >
> >> and if
> >> they do, they either shouldn't be constant, or something in your world
> >> changed fundamentally (i.e. scientists discovered that PI actually
> >> equals to 4).
> >
> > Constants in code aren't necessarily natural constants.
> >
> > I wonder if you find in your code constant that you need
> >> to hide because you foresee it changing - should it really be a constant
> >> at all?
> >
> > If I have a value specified in the source code which will not change at
> runtime, and which I don't want to expose as part of my public API... what
> exactly do you propose it should be? I don't see why a constant isn't
> fitting.
> >
> public static final as Java does
>
>
https://3v4l.org/KX5jQ
> PHP Fatal error:  Cannot declare property Foo::$Bar final, the final
modifier is allowed only for methods and classes in - on line 4

So there is no way to create an immutable property with a visibility
modifier, unless you're suggesting that's what the RFC should be instead.

--089e010d8400ce78c1051f323785--