Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88906
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain siobud.com designates 104.236.58.159 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:17:40 -0500
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <20151021161740.GA23933@3006.local>
References: <20151020173602.GA92318@3006.local>
 <CA+kxMuSRFiM7nO0xZprzzEa7KNk8Yh8bm2xsSF0Edhhcoun50A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSRFiM7nO0xZprzzEa7KNk8Yh8bm2xsSF0Edhhcoun50A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Class Constant Visibility
From: sean@siobud.com (Sean DuBois)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:54:48PM +0000, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Sean, internals,
>
> While I support this RFC, it seems that the actual implementation is
> still under discussion.
>
> In particular, whether the RFC is going to allow protected constants
> in an interface is not clear.
>
> In the text of the RFC, on one line it says: "This RFC propose PHP
> support class constant visibility that mirror the behaviour of method
> and property visibility." This would imply that protected constants
> are not allowed, as protected methods are not allowed in interfaces.
>
> Just below it says: "//Interfaces only support protected/public const,
> and a compile time error will be throw for privates" Which says
> clearly that protected constants _would_ be allowed.
>
> Please can you update the text of the RFC?
>
> Unfortunately, that may need a restart of the voting :-\ However that
> should just be a formality as it seems to be a popular RFC.
>
> cheers
> Dan
>
> --
Hi!

That is an unfortunate mistake on my part. The *proper* way to adjust
visibility of a trait from a class constant is the following.

    trait myTrait {
        public const FOO = 'bar'
    }

    class myClass {
        use myTrait { FOO as protected; }
    }

    class myClass {
        use myTrait { FOO as private; }
    }

We should not allow anything besides public in trait, this mirrors the design of methods.

If this is right (mind just sending an ACK to make sure I got it right this time) I
will update the RFC. Who decides if/when we should restart voting?

thanks