Am 17.01.2013 19:20, schrieb Clint Priest:
I'm happy to say that Property Accessors is ready for a vote for
inclusion in 5.5 release.
Nikita and I (as well as Stas a bit) have all been working hard to make
this happen for 5.5, voting and the specifications are here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2#voting
Thanks,
-Clint
Thanks Clint and Niki for your work. Sorry to respond only now that the
voting process has already started. I usually don't follow/participate
on internals due to the noise and poisoned atmosphere (but that's a
different story). Also thanks Niki for taking the time to answer all my
questions I had about this beforehand.
IMO, the new getter/setter syntax adds very little benefit for the loads
of syntax it introduces. I understand that people are looking forward to
that new feature though, so I won't oppose it just because I have little
use for it.
My main issue with the implementation at hand is the weird way in which
we allow the visibility on the properties to be declared, e.g.
public $foo { get; protected set; }
The visibility keyword on the property is watering down the visibility
semantics. Either the property is public (then it can be set) or it is
not public. I would have much less of a problem with this, if declaring
visibility on a property could only be loosened but not tightened. That
would at least be consistent with how visibility works with inheritance.
It would be much better though to remove the visibility keyword from the
property altogether. It almost never tells the truth.
Removing the visibility keyword from the property altogether would also
remove the purported default visibility that is applied to the
accessors. I say "purported" because doing
public $foo { get; protected set; }
will also change the unset accessor to protected, which makes perfect
sense when you think about it but is completely unobvious when the
declaration claims the default visibility of all accessors to be public.
The default visibility of isset is that of get and the default
visibility of unset is that of set instead.
To add to the confusion, doing
public $foo { get; protected set; public unset; }
WILL work and change the visibility of unset back to what the property
claims it is. This should not be necessary when visibility on the
keyword defines the default visibility. I guess it's safe to say that
having the visibility on the property does very little to express
anything meaningful about the property or the default visibility of
*all* the accessors.
I briefly discussed possible solutions to this problem with Niki. Simply
removing the visibility looks odd
$foo { get; protected set; public unset; }
but might be the easiest approach. The above would follow the same rules
visibility follows for any other methods, e.g. omitting the visibility
on the accessor will make it public.
Both of us are not keen on introducing new keywords, though I find
property $foo { get; protected set; public unset; }
quite nice and it is also more obvious that this is not your regular
property. Niki suggested
var $foo { get; protected set; public unset; }
but it's keyword recycling and one could argue that in PHP4 a var was
always public. But then again, PHP4 didn't have the concept of
visibility at all, so why not?
If this could be changed, I'd be more willing to vote pro the proposal.
TL;DR: The visibility keyword on the property is almost never giving an
accurate information about the accessor visibility. Thus, it should be
removed or replaced for clarity's sake.
Regards,
Gordon
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
