On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 8:45 AM Eugene Sidelnyk <zsidel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is replica of github PR comments:
>
> Hi there!
> Isn't it better to simplify this a bit? I mean `readonly` keyword is really
> long to type every time we need such property. Earlier (in php7.3)
> properties were defined only with visibility modifier. Now it is going to
> become *toooo verbose*.
>
> ```php
> class A
> {
> // 24 characters before actual property name
> readonly public string $name;
> readonly public string $another;
>
> public function __construct(string $var)
> {
> $this->name = $var;
> $this->another = $var;
> }
> }
>
> $a = new A('foo');
> var_dump($a);
> ```
>
> What seems for me to be better is remove `readonly` modifier at all, with
> somewhat different modification. Look at the code below. This is intended
> to work the same way as previous example.
>
> ```php
> class A
> {
> // 14 characters before actual property name
> public string name;
> public string another;
>
> public function __construct(string $var)
> {
> $this->name = $var;
> $this->another = $var;
> }
> }
>
> $a = new A('foo');
> var_dump($a);
> ```
>
> This is less explicit (we don't actually write `readonly` keyword), and it
> may be confusing for some programmer who is new to php. However after first
> attempt of modification, such layman will understand it's syntax and keep
> with it.
>
> Readonly properties are really useful for DDD, where everything is going to
> be immutable. It promotes best practices. However for people to use it,
> syntax should be concise and brief.
>
> @nikic , want to hear your thoughts on this.
>
> * kolardavid <https://github.com/kolardavid> * 1 hour ago
> <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7089#issuecomment-881191365>
>
> @rela589n <https://github.com/rela589n> First of all, you are coming late
> (as me before), since this RFC is already voted and implemented completely.
> Anyway, I find your suggestion bad. The truth is, that it is a bit more
> verbose, but I am OK with that. It might be annoying to write (word
> protected is even longer) but it is far better to read. It makes the code
> more clear. Human brain is very well "optimized" to notice words it is used
> to, more than symbols. This idea stays behind the fact that Delphi for
> example uses begin/end instead of { and } (even though I am kind of tired
> of it as well). Anyway, your solution of dropping $ for readonly property
> would be nightmare for everyone, not just beginners. I am sure that @nikic
> <https://github.com/nikic> will say the same, since he seems as pedantic
> as
> I am about these things. Since all modifiers are already nice
> self-explaining word, there is no point in doing this differently for new
> modifier. It wouldn't be consistent, nor convenient. Mixed properties with
> and without $ sign would look like typo, not intention.
>
> * rela589n <https://github.com/rela589n> * 26 minutes ago
> <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7089#issuecomment-881206048>
> The philosophy of the Functional Programming <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming> paradigm is strongly
> geared towards all "variables" being immutable, and "mutable" ones being
> only allowed in extreme cases (ie, for I/O. This will not look like a typo.
> Immutability should be provided by default. BTW, in future scope we can
> create "readonly" variables. So that once a variable is defined, no one can
> change its value. I oppose creating kind of `let` and `const` for this.
>
> * rela589n <https://github.com/rela589n> * 21 minutes ago
> <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7089#issuecomment-881208237>
> > Anyway, your solution of dropping $ for readonly property would be
> nightmare for everyone, not just beginners
>
> It would be a nightmare if these values could be changed. As we can't
> rewrite `readonly` property, it looks like a constant. This concept of
> readonly properties should come along with constants not only by semantics,
> but also by syntax.
>
> * rela589n <https://github.com/rela589n> * 18 minutes ago
> <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7089#issuecomment-881209502>
> > The truth is, that it is a bit more verbose, but I am OK with that. It
> might be annoying to write (word protected is even longer) but it is far
> better to read.
>
> We already have Java with it's verbose syntax. We should think what should
> be default and safe behaviour covering most cases and make such verbose
> constructions for cases not covered by default logic.
>
We cannot make properties readonly by default, because that would be a
major backwards compatibility break.
If you're going for brevity, something you can do is omit the visibility
specifier, as it is public by default. "readonly int $prop" works.
Regards,
Nikita
