Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88113
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAObuZduJY772YRW=SZchMOwwBRro720cNGKD6i+po2SW6wGgjg@mail.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> <CAObuZduJY772YRW=SZchMOwwBRro720cNGKD6i+po2SW6wGgjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:14:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpcYdnJnVg4oQv-R-6n2LeOcMnbsNXvdtFGHWPK1A3ODsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Concept] Class Constant visibility
 modifiersin PHP 7.1+
From: laruence@gmail.com (Xinchen Hui)

Hey:

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ah, I thought it should work , so sad..

thanks



-- 
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/