On 2/25/25 4:51 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote: > I actually started writing an RFC to rationalise some of this behaviour
I'm glad I'm not the only one who considers this an issue worth pursuing! > Here are some of the things that might happen as a result of unset($foo->bar): I don't disagree that there's a lot of weirdness. But for better or worse that's where PHP is now - it's a fundamentally weird language. I think it's better to be consistently weird than to be inconsistently weird. It would be inconsistent to allow unsetting some types of properties but not others, and which ones can and can't be unset are indistinguishable to a 3rd-party consumer. That's a footgun - the fact that it's caused by an evolution of weirdness is neither here nor there. > If we allow a hooked property to directly "unset" the backing value, what > *exactly* will it do? I can't comment from an implementation perspective, but as a user of PHP I would expect unsetting a backed property to return the property the "uninitialized" state, and subsequent access would proceed as if it were the first access of the uninitialized property. Unsetting a virtual property could simply do nothing, but not result in a fatal error. I don't think a warning is even necessary because no action is taken. > If we add an "unset" hook, what's the default behaviour if one isn't defined? Adding an unset hook could be out of scope of this proposal, but if there's sentiment that one should be added, not defining one would result in the behavior described above. I certainly don't want to be required to define an unset hook for every single backed property; rather `unset()` should have a default behavior. > I think it's one of those features that sounds simple when you look at a > single use case, but actually specify the behaviour in all cases is going to > be a lot of work. Definitely. I do think that hard things are worth pursuing in the interest of consistency and functionality. But then again I'm not the one implementing it!
