On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 13 déc. 2022 à 16:34, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
>>
>> ```php
>> class C {
>> $a;
>> int $b;
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public`
>> visibility:
>>
>> ```php
>> class C {
>> static $c;
>> readonly int $d;
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the `public`
>> keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the most
>> controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Because of
>> this inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly `public`
>> anyway.
>>
>> —Claude
>
>
> However, I’m just realising that omitting `public` in declarations like
> `public $a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because it
> is incompatible with constructor property promotion, as `function
> __construct(public int $b) { }`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }`
> have different meanings.
>
> —Claude
Well, it seems the only people who have opinions on the abbreviated form at all
dislike it, so we've removed it for now and left a mention in future-scope. A
future RFC can add that if desired.
That should, I think, be the final change to the asymmetric visibility RFC.
Baring anything else coming up, I expect to call the vote sometime the week of
2 January.
Happy $holiday!
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
