On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 05:25 Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com> wrote:
> > > > On 30 Nov 2022, at 08:27, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote: > > > >> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility > >> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility > >> <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility>): > >>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST > be strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility > may only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set > visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a > compile time error. > >>> > >> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected > >> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the > >> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That > >> should be clarified. > > > > Er. That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main > visibility. The lines after are just restating it. "public public(set)" > is not allowed. > > > > (We may relax that in the future to make it compatible with readonly, > but that's for later.) > > > >> > >> (Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more > >> cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid > >> it.) > >> > >>> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That > would technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed. > >> > >> That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden. > > > > Good catch, fixed. Thanks. > > > > --Larry Garfield > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > Hi Larry, > > Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, but > I have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the logic of > readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not readonly” - this is > even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made them mutually exclusive > behaviours. > > I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems > like it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify unintuitive > behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more obvious way. > > > Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with > “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing “__set()” > behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve indicated these > features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are mutually exclusive? > > While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited form > of asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in terms of > intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to comprehend even > with readonly: > > - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if it’s > declared as protected, __set is called when the property is accessed from > outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that readonly imposes an > implicit visibility difference - but that is essentially an implementation > detail, from the point of view of the userland developer, it’s not a clear > statement of intended behaviour on their part, expressed through the code > as written. > > For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why > __set() isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a > public property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the > property behind the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared, > it’s the implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular, > non-readonly fields: when the field is declared public (or has implicit > public visibility) __set() is never called. > > If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the property > is written to from outside the class, regardless of whether it’s readonly > or not. > > > What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely > unintuitive: when attempting to *write* data to a property that is marked > as protected(set), the __set() method will not be called. > > > So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation > detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with > declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic setter > method? > > Hey, Stephen, Larry, Just clarifying how I see it: Practically, the asymmetric visibility for properties is not more or less than asymmetric write-access for properties. That is what is implemented, that is what other languages have as well and this is what's needed. Of course, except for relation with __set(), unset() and other php specials, it wouldn't make a difference. If you think it like this, that property is actually visible but only there is a restriction on writing it, you would probably agree that __set() should not be called. And given that, for clarity, I would be happy if the word visibility would be changed in the rfc with write-access in various places, including the rfc name. But I don't think it's very important, as long as I've understood the behavior and I can easily explain it going forward. Regards, Alex > > Cheers > > Stephen > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
