# [RFC] Property Accessors v1.2 : Extra shorthand declaration - Thread: https://externals.io/message/63643 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/63643 - Started by Clint Priest on 2012-10-26T10:43:43+00:00 - Messages: 7 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #63643 — Clint Priest — 2012-10-26T10:43:43+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63643 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? -- -Clint --- ## #63644 — Jazzer Dane — 2012-10-26T10:53:19+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63644 · In reply to: #63643 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-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 --- ## #63649 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-10-26T14:39:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63649 · In reply to: #63643 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 --- ## #63652 — Levi Morrison — 2012-10-26T15:18:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63652 · In reply to: #63643 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *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. --- ## #63654 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-10-26T20:07:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63654 · In reply to: #63652 Hi! > I just have one question: can we drop `public`? Default visibility in We already had var, it didn't prove a good idea. PHP is explicit for a reason, to be clear. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #63668 — Clint Priest — 2012-10-27T17:42:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63668 · In reply to: #63649 > Hi! > > > […] > 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. I would agree that it should not be in here, AFAIK only Nikita was pushing for this... anyone else want to fight to have this functionality? > 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? This is related to accessors shadowing properties, if that's the case then $this->date would retrieve an actual property named date (and since it's shadowed by the accessor it could never be accessed from outside the accessor. See the shadowing thread. -- -Clint --- ## #63680 — Larry Garfield — 2012-10-28T02:41:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/63643#63680 · In reply to: #63643 > 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