Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92049
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.29 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CABDNdAHwgx+LJRc_gi9citiypxxWVGFMB+6hrmU+vVYDWCDV_g@mail.gmail.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>
 <CY1PR0201MB17863E4B9D9F53151A900DCDBF870@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAL=_i_mNwmpg0PWmrm3nTZxn6s33u2QUzavk8w0Fk1OGvbWJtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY1PR0201MB1786AAFDC6170AB1585CA7F5BF870@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY1PR0201MB17867DAC10D401EE9EC49CBCBF870@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAL=_i_knwzrcXdx1k4ii8YKzrgaREBFcHYGC9ZV_J05ZWVWmzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56FC4ED6.6050701@telia.com>
 <CAL=_i_ksOzCV1SUtB2jwSYPm1SL2y3jy43+JSZ3k6KRywsizUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56FCE6C9.1050302@zend.com>
 <CAL=_i_kx=94AFi=+iU-+EaqWms_0OfuUHgoOFZQtV1xS98tGWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR02MB298EFF28A29324C3914CA11AC990@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <56FD4E18.7070703@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:19:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB298EFF28A29324C3914CA11AC990@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Discussion] Typed Properties
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 3/31/16 8:01 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Watkins [mailto:pthreads@pthreads.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:41 PM
>> To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
>> Cc: Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>; Phil Sturgeon
>> <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>; Krakjo <krakjoe@php.net>; PHP internals
>> <internals@lists.php.net>
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Discussion] Typed Properties
>>
>> Morning Dmitry,
>>
>>> This should be a error. I also think, that "public" might be omitted,
>>> and it should be possible to write "int $bar, $foo"
>> Omitting public might be nice, but also totally separate, you should be able to
>> omit it for untyped properties too.
>>
>>> You say - C, C++, Java, HHVM, etc - all made worse decision? OK
>> No. C, C++, C#, and Java had a different decision to make.
> I don't think the decision is fundamentally different.  It's fundamentally very similar if not identical.
>
>> [public] int foo, bar;
>>
>> It is obvious that bar is an int in any of those languages precisely because it
>> necessarily has a type.
>>
>> Why we should jump to the same conclusion, in a system where properties do
>> not necessarily have types is not clear to me.
> Because we're dealing with a single statement, and we already have the concept that a modifier for that statement is enforced throughout the statement - I don't see how whether that modifier is mandatory or not makes any meaningful difference.  Having an access modifier affect the entire statement, while a type modifier affecting only the variable next to it - is extremely inconsistent.
>
> If
>
> Private Person $p, Car $c;
>
> works, why shouldn't:
> Private Person $p, public Car $c;
>
> Work as well?
>
> In addition to being inconsistent, it also calls for poor coding practices - mixing typed and untyped declarations in a single statement - as well as different types in a single declaration.  In that context, what drove other languages to pick their syntax and force developers to separate declaration of different variables types into different statements - applies exactly in the same manner for all other languages, us included.
>
> Zeev

Honestly I never even realized that you could put multiple declarations 
on a single line, have never done so, and would reject code from any of 
my projects that did so as poor style. :-)  That said, since it is legal 
I agree that it should be kept unambiguous and consistent.

 From what Zeev is saying, the following seems like a reasonable rule: 
You get ONE visibility modifier and ONE type statement per declaration, 
and both must come at the beginning, period.  That is, the following are 
legal:

public int $a, $b;
protected $a, $b;
var int $a, $b;

And always apply across the entire line, period.

The following are all syntax errors:

public int $a, string $b;
var int $a, protected $b;
private $a, float $b;

That seems fairly easy for a reader to follow, reasonably consistent, 
and I presume straightforward to implement (not being a C developer I 
hand-wave that part...).  If you want to do something more complex... 
make it multiple statements.  That's why multiple statements exist.

Zeev, is that an accurate summary of what you're arguing?

-- 
--Larry Garfield