> Le 13 janv. 2026 à 22:30, Larry Garfield <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, at 5:24 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> In other news, Ilija and I said a year ago that we'd take a swing at
>> adding isReadable/isWriteable methods to ReflectionProperty. Took a
>> while, but here we are. A strangely small RFC from us:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswriteable
>
> Hi folks.
>
> The holiday blackout period is over, and there's nothing else really to
> discuss on this PR, so consider this an Intent to Vote notice for the
> isReadable RFC.
>
> I'll call the vote later this week, baring any new serious constructive
> feedback.
>
> --Larry Garfield
Hi,
The RFC says:
> To use “my current scope,” the static::class construct is an easy way to
> specify “whatever class this code is running in.”
The code is running in `self::class` or `__CLASS__`, not in `static::class`.
------
As noted in the RFC, `isReadable()` will give unavoidable false-positives
(returning `true` although attempt to read the property will error). But there
is also a false-negative:
```php
class C {
function __construct(
readonly private mixed $foo
) { }
function __get($x) {
if ($x === 'foo') {
return $this->foo;
}
throw new Error('Undefined property '.$x);
}
function __isset($x) {
if ($x === 'foo')
return isset($this->foo); // not `true`, otherwise `isset(new
C(null)->foo)` will return an incorrect result.
}
return false;
}
}
$c = new C(null);
// will return false, although it is readable
var_dump(new ReflectionProperty($c, 'foo')->isReadable(null, $c));
```
One could skip the `__isset()` check in order to avoid the false-negative, at
the cost of more false-positives. I don’t know what is best, because I tend to
avoid `__get()` like the plague anyway.
—Claude
