> I am hereby opening the vote on the Asymmetric Visibility RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility > > Voting will be open for 2 weeks. > > While we would certainly prefer if everyone voted in favor, for those who > vote against the authors kindly request that you indicate why, using the > second poll question or comment section afterward. Thank you. >
Hi Larry, Ilija, Thanks for opening the vote. I played a bit with the code and I didn't spot any unexpected behavior, nice work. I'm undecided for now, on two points: 1. the syntax: looking at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks, I wonder if using public string $foo {private set;} wouldn't be more appropriate. Otherwise, it might be strange to have public private(set) string $foo {set ($value) { /* the setter */};} if hooks are the way forward. Sure we could compact that but that would introduce two very different syntax whether a setter is defined or not. WDYT? 2. the feature itself: I feel like this new syntax doesn't open new capabilities over using methods, so this might "just" add complexity in the end, adding alternative ways to do something already doable (I'm making the argument for hooks also BTW). Would you be able to clarify why we need this? (The only new capability that feels appealing to me is the "init" modifier, but this is not what this RFC is about.) About my point 2., did you consider a syntax to map a getter+setter to properties? That might fill the need for asym visibility + hooks in one go? I'm seeing quite often libraries that do this sort of mapping based on conventions. This would bake the practice into the language: public string $foo {get: getFoo, set: setFoo} or something like that, with method visibility being added on top of the property visibility. Sorry to chime in that late, I'm really undecided and discussing those topics would help. Thanks, Nicolas
