[RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Extra shorthand declaration View as Markdown

Is the only intended benefit behind this proposal the ability to seamlessly
extend a seemingly normal property as an accessor?

I'm opening up several new threads to get discussion going on the
remaining "being debated" categories referenced in this 1.1 -> 1.2 change
spec:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-
implemented/change-requestshttps://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented/change-requests

------------------------------------------------------------

Extra shorthand declaration

Allow extra short declaration of an accessor:

class TimePeriod {
public DateTime $date;
}

/* Would be equivalent to this */

class TimePeriod {
public $date {
get() { return $this->date; }
set(DateTime $value) { $this->date = $value;}
}
}

------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

--
-Clint

Hi!

/* Would be equivalent to this */

class TimePeriod {
public $date {
get() { return $this->date; }
set(DateTime $value) { $this->date = $value;}
}
}

I don't think this has a use case and this encourages mixing variables
with properties (which I'm not sure is a very good idea) and writing
slower and more complicated code which doesn't actually do any
additional work. I'd rather not encourage it. If you want it - fine,
implement it, but I don't think supporting it is good.

Also, "get() { return $this->date; }" implies there is a thing called
"$this->date" which is not the property itself. So what is it? Should
there be additional "public $date;" declaration in your code? Is it
implied that property definition also creates a variable inside class
automatically - I was under expression this does not happen, and nothing
in the RFC implies it. Should it be $this->__date maybe like in
"automatic accessors" part of the RFC?

Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227

---

Extra shorthand declaration

Allow extra short declaration of an accessor:

class TimePeriod {
public DateTime $date;
}

/* Would be equivalent to this */

class TimePeriod {
public $date {
get() { return $this->date; }
set(DateTime $value) { $this->date = $value;}
}
}

This is lovely. Full support from me.

I just have one question: can we drop public? Default visibility in
methods is public, so maybe we can drop it when using type-hinted
properties? Just an idea; no worries if it needs to stay.

I'm opening up several new threads to get discussion going on the
remaining "being debated" categories referenced in this 1.1 -> 1.2
change spec:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented/change-requests

---

Extra shorthand declaration

Allow extra short declaration of an accessor:

class TimePeriod {
public DateTime $date;
}

/* Would be equivalent to this */

class TimePeriod {
public $date {
get() { return $this->date; }
set(DateTime $value) { $this->date = $value;}
}
}

---

Thoughts?

My knee-jerk response is that I'd love to be able to do public DateTime
$date; it's nicely self-documenting and gives me very simple type safety
(and therefore a clear and useful error thrown in my face, rather than a
mystery bug later). That said, I think that goes back to my mental
model question in my previous post, and I can't fully endorse this
without knowing my mental model.

--Larry Gafield