Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93873 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70018 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2016 14:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jun 2016 14:58:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pthreads@pthreads.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pthreads@pthreads.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.213.42 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pthreads@pthreads.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.42 mail-vk0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.42] ([209.85.213.42:36863] helo=mail-vk0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DD/F3-50092-285DA575 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:58:11 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id g67so100750870vkb.3 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pthreads-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=It+84qKHVXL+1hAtP6vyJQqFyEaCDOunkTaXGYLkObY=; b=unr0qdDHFtO6PvfNh9CKa0Xe7/sJKGt4WcFX++NQAQ+h5EjNHDNoYyktoA49r+uaZO 7SDtf3FkY1emMkZK2nVgOyT67pXZvd/VlxEuSJP2yo1PbAK4gsTUfVnqUiJ7+i4BN20u iAilYcTTNzhi5R+P/HR+hM1vQJcIFnIhHILDqAelJo76DnBOUL86tYlTSVNoj7QXr5XE ckcQ79jnOdKbneMIfiz++SZyn1ZrrFmEZuuoR0amsqdwPQcMpyNvEDijyCmqUBlxTcRo efZ4RLDGFJ+oAOaoVTuGGKpKTUt/+IA05OkViXUTjaDqa0O96MDxGrAxEz+3I8Oj+jXK FLtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=It+84qKHVXL+1hAtP6vyJQqFyEaCDOunkTaXGYLkObY=; b=KfBvQ1XC9P/nQWgx/qSnFmZ6Mwd0HPF/dfSn7wV+mNXJRJYbqnSMEMFFLA6qufJOL2 QYI0aJxXrEbN2Y67DiME/K5KVVkLmK9HC6bBTqP644ntz5z97AcedzXIDJpZSdKkti27 TZGIFyfOZUaZIpq2Km0FWV544Ujs5Yn5mqbZHrAlVBatnIzH03l3duMc9jB4UJ+i0j6x OQkahFnmWhUg3xPr8zAAwlHxlQ+pHBySGi86W/BMKucqzqqVmEoWx4cs2sccPOkGgFmT sc79pZn3nRpKHi6/bW77MwQ2J58/lu3NxLTFeEuA7cwE6XrjAilCvJ5PD9RCKlB6juYN GRcw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIpSqDSO/QV732+Qqf5TV1CHxBk4lA/uGuApnYK3heAOHh/Ug0jOwC7rZbR2udnXjIoVivWdYaEtvRlQQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.178.18 with SMTP id b18mr1016152vkf.84.1465570688049; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.47.199 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [109.157.60.99] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:58:07 +0100 Message-ID: To: Bob Weinand Cc: Niklas Keller , Marco Pivetta , Philip Sturgeon , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143ebba4132050534edc498 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins) --001a1143ebba4132050534edc498 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Woops, no it isn't ... the property is private ... Cheers Joe On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Joe Watkins wrote: > That's a bug ... that should throw ... > > Cheers > Joe > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: > >> >> Am 10.06.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Niklas Keller : >> >> 2016-06-10 15:50 GMT+02:00 Bob Weinand : >> >>> >>> Am 10.6.2016 um 15:34 schrieb Niklas Keller : >>> >>> >>> Top-posting, since I'm taking off now. >>> >>> From outside the class, properties are not visible at all, so their types >>> are un-important from outer scopes. >>> >>> echo $foo->bar; is not the same in instance method body or outside of the >>> class. >>> >>> From outside it works just fine and doesn't throw: >>> https://3v4l.org/L8CqF/rfc#rfc-typed_properties >>> >>> >>> This is an intermittent bug in the implementation. >>> the RFC is explicitly mentioning that it should throw and throwing also >>> is the correct behavior here. >>> >> >> I don't think this is and should be a bug. I think it is the right >> behavior if we choose to throw at all. >> >> >> In this case a definite -1 on the RFC from me. I don't want "surprises" >> regarding the type if a property is declared to return a certain type. >> >> Bob >> > > --001a1143ebba4132050534edc498--