You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the engine
to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is my
cue to explore other languages for handling requests
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM Rodrigo Vieira <rodrigo.vieir...@outlook.com>
wrote:
> I didn't like the `Prefix-style` syntax. I prefer the
> `Hook-embedded-style` syntax. First let's look at the counterpoints of the
> `Prefix-style` syntax:
>
> ## 1) "`Prefix-style` is more visually scannable"
> > The set visibility is 10 lines away from the get visibility!
>
> Solution:
> ```php
> class HookEmbeddedStyle
> {
> public string $phone {
> private set {
> $this->phone = implode('', array_filter(fn($c) =>
> is_numeric($c), explode($value)))
> }
> get {
> if (!$this->phone) {
> return '';
> }
> if ($this->phone[0] === 1) {
> return 'US ' . $this->phone;
> }
> return 'Intl +' . $this->phone;
> }
> }
> }
> ```
> The set visibility is not 10 lines away from the get visibility if you put
> it at the top. For me this is about code convention, not about syntactic
> structure:
> only put the hook with explicit visibility at the top, when some of the
> hooks do not have explicit visibility!
>
> ## 2) "`Prefix-style` is shorter"
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
>
> public string $name { private set; }
> ```
>
> Irrelevant to consider 1-2 characters.
> If you break the lines needed for the hook block, the line (the horizontal
> size) is smaller when using `Hook-embedded-style` and in my opinion it is
> more readable because there is less information per line:
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
>
> public string $name {
> private set;
> }
> ```
>
> ## 3) "`Prefix-style` doesn't presume a connection with hooks"
> > As noted above in "Interaction with hooks", visibility controls exist
> independently of hooks.
>
> I agree, but with Property Hooks, this should now define the overall
> visibility only. Like a bigger gate that you open, and there are other
> doors defining the visibility of the operations get, set (hooks).
>
> > In fact, as implemented, they don't interact at all. Using hook syntax
> for visibility controls is therefore surprising and confusing.
>
> Why "surprising and confusing"? I see hooks as a different kind of
> function/method.
> Property Hooks RFC shouldn't pass without requiring hook parentheses, for
> any hook when the property is not abstract. The `$value` in the `set` hook
> seems to come out of nowhere to some people (the exception is for hooks
> declared on an abstract property which you can define without parameters
> and thus you are free to define whatever parameters you want on the
> concrete property).
>
> When you define a method in PHP, it should be possible to omit the
> "function", but the parameters should be required because that's the nature
> of a function/method: to have parameters.
>
> ## 4) "It's non-obvious in `Hook-embedded-style` what hook behavior should
> be implied"
>
> > ...So “arrays with hooks can do less” is already an established fact of
> the language. However, if the hook-style syntax is used for visibility:
>
> ```php
> class A
> {
> public array $arr { protected set; }
> }
>
> class B extends A
> {
> public function add(int $val)
> {
> // Should this be legal?
> $this->arr[] = $val;
> }
> }
>
> $b = new B();
>
> $b->add(5);
> ```
> First of all: non-abstract property hook must have a body.
> Second: when asymmetric visibility is explicit, it means that symmetric
> visibility is implicit: a declared hook that does not have declared
> visibility has the same general visibility as the property, in this case:
> public.
>
> Third:
> There's another limitation on hooks here that makes things a bit
> confusing: there's a missing hook for a specific operation because you can
> clearly separate the `set` from the `push` operation...
>
> Solution:
> ```php
> abstract class A
> {
> abstract public array $arr {
> push; // Hook available only for "array" type properties only;
> public visibility
> private set;
> }
> }
>
> class B extends A
> {
> public array $arr {
> push ($value) { // `public push ...` here is redundant
> // Mandatory to implement logic here.
> }
> private set ($value) {
> // Mandatory to Implement logic here.
> }
> }
>
> public function __construct ()
> {
> // Legal ✅ (set hook is protected)
> $this->arr = [1]; // call set hook
> }
> public function add(int $value)
> {
> // Legal ✅ (push hook is public)
> $this->arr[] = $value; // call push hook
> }
> }
>
> $b = new B();
>
> $b->add(5);
> $b->arr; // Legal ✅ (Inherited from the general visibility that is public)
> $b->arr = [1, 2, 3]; // Fatal error ❌ - access to set hook is private only
> $b->arr[] = 4; // Legal ✅ - call public push hook
> ```
>
> My point: `Prefix-style` is not future-proof
> ## 1) The `Prefix-style` is not compatible with new hooks
> If more hooks are added in the future, such as the `push` hook for arrays
> or even a hook that is compatible with all types such as `init`,
> `Hook-embedded-style` will become compatible, but `Prefix-style` not.
>
> ## 2) Hook overloading
> If hook overloading is added in the future, `Prefix-style` would not be
> supported to have this granular visibility into operations. For example, it
> might be possible to add a public hook and a protected hook for the same
> operation, where one would be triggered if the operation occurred from
> outside the class, and the other if the operation occurred from inside the
> class.
> Em 10 de jun. de 2024 13:15 -0300, Tiffany <tiffany.k.tay...@gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, 2:16 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric
>> visibility.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>>
>> It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few
>> adjustments and changes:
>>
>> * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
>> * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else
>> set is the most common use case.
>> * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified. The
>> implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less
>> confusing now.
>> * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) and
>> with interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist at the
>> time of the last draft.
>> * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete
>> improvement, even in a world with readonly and hooks.
>> * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was chosen.
>>
>> *dons flame retardant suit*
>>
>> --
>> Larry Garfield
>> la...@garfieldtech.com
>
>
> Sending an email to quickly enable a new mailing list subscriber to engage
> in the conversation.
>
>
