Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91997
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: <56FAD03C.20701@telia.com>
References: <CABDNdAHwgx+LJRc_gi9citiypxxWVGFMB+6hrmU+vVYDWCDV_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1458149992.3969.2.camel@kuechenschabe>
	<BLU436-SMTP1394648F9BABA2FA74BFC4DE28A0@phx.gbl>
	<1458151531.3969.8.camel@kuechenschabe>
	<BLU436-SMTP2092DD6AFBC93D83397A3C7E28A0@phx.gbl>
	<1458153695.3969.16.camel@kuechenschabe>
	<3F.70.02405.6803BE65@pb1.pair.com>
	<56F01545.8080008@gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-Z82kBT18ivvKejD5_dBf=dtbNYN-cZcyO1K=0C1WcLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56F14572.701@gmail.com>
	<56F15EF5.80006@telia.com>
	<56F16023.1010002@gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZxYwXKLp8ASkjiwXgzDtjKxJ8rYROCM-t=8sU5=efhg2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZwOJOkNu4N=h+wQRX4w8-KV=zg9x4khhLRLu199YcqZxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAGh4OjkkEQim6oYK=sZ=zj1Q==HzE=SLJ1E8=a=ku1DqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56FAD03C.20701@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:38:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CABDNdAHcaXD4bq0tePRh=twKnwQ=-YzrfaQNNU4vmp6Gn522DA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Larsson?= <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Discussion] Typed Properties
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Phil Sturgeon)

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson
<bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2016-03-29 kl. 17:32, skrev Phil Sturgeon:
>>
>> I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback on this RFC!
>>
>> It looks like the majority of concerns were solved during the course
>> of this discussion, which is great news.
>>
>> The RFC has been expanded in a few areas to take care of a few other
>> concerns, so please go and review it and let me know if you have any
>> feedback.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed-properties
>>
>> Voting will start in a few days.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
> A question. Should the visibility keyword public be optional
> like it is for methods and static properties?
>
> Regards //Bj=C3=B6rn
>

Hey Bj=C3=B6rn, this RFC has literally zero impact on visibility keywords.
You can use public, private, protected, you can omit it entirely or
you can use var if you like. It makes no difference.