Hi
On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote:
To clarify my position:
* The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same restriction
level than the get visibility.
* When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:
* If `readonly` is present, the set visibility is `private` (as of today);
* otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility (again,
as of today).
* We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected protected(set)
string $foo;` when you could just write `protected string $foo` for the same
effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `public
function()` when you could just write `function()` for the same effect. We
leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or the
long form is preferred.
I agree with that.
--------------
As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate
discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's
clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section in
the RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) which
I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember
an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the
evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it
still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already
split into way-to-many threads and also the poll.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
