> On 23 Feb 2024, at 22:58, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024, at 8:33 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>>> On 23 Feb 2024, at 06:56, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Larry,
>> It's good to see this idea still progressing.
>> I have to agree with the other comment(s) that the implicit
>> `$field`/`$value` variables seem odd to me. I understand the desire for
>> brevity and the potential future scope of reused hooks, but this
>> concept seems to fly in the face of many years of PHP reducing "magic"
>> like this.
>
> The "magic" that PHP has been removing is mostly weird and illogical type
> casting. As noted, neither of these variables are any more "magic" than
> $this.
>
> However, since it seems no one likes $field, we have removed it from the RFC.
> Of note, to respond to your comment further down, $this->{__PROPERTY__} will
> not work. The virtual-property detection looks for the AST representation of
> $this->propName, and only that. Dynamic versions that turn into that at
> runtime cannot work, as it needs to be known at compile time.
I guess it's mostly irrelevant on single-use hooks anyway, but that sounds like
a potential gotcha with reusable hooks, and I think it's worth making it very
clear *now* in the RFC/docs that dynamic access like this won't work as
expected (and why). Perhaps some other indicator on reusablele hooks can be
used at that point, to signify if it's virtual or not.
> For $value, however, we feel strongly that having the default there is a
> necessary part of the ergonomic picture. In particular, given your comments
> here:
>
>> To give one answer to your question about ambiguity if the `$value`
>> parameter is required - I don't believe this is actually ambiguous, in
>> the context of PHP:
>> - method parameters in child classes don't implicitly 'inherit' the
>> parent method parameter's type if they don't define one (they widen to
>> mixed);
>> - method return types have no implicit inheritance, they must declare a
>> compatible return type;
>> - typed class properties don't implicitly inherit the parent type when
>> the type left off a child property - they must declare the same type.
>> AFAIK there is no existing behaviour in PHP where omitting a type would
>> mean "the type is implicitly inherited from X", it either means the
>> same as mixed, or it's an error.
>
> That to me suggests that IF a custom variable name is provided, we should
> require also specifying the type. In which case, in the 95% case, if we
> require the full argument signature then the 95% case would need to
> double-specify the type, which is a hard-no from an ergonomic standpoint.
>
> Especially combined with the suggestion yesterday to allow return-to-set in
> the short-set version, that would mean comparing this:
>
> public string $phone {
> set(string $phone) => $this->phone = $this->sanitizePhone($phone);
> }
>
> To this:
>
> public string $phone {
> set => $this->sanitizePhone($value);
> }
>
> And to me, there's absolutely no contest. The latter has about 1/3 as many
> places for me to make a typo repeating the same information over again. Now
> imagine comparing the above in a property that's used with constructor
> promotion.
>
>
> public function __construct(
> public string $phone { set(string $phone) => $this->phone =
> $this->sanitizePhone($phone); }
> public string $phone { set => $this->sanitizePhone($value); }
> ) {}
>
> Again, it's absolutely no contest for me. I would detest writing the longer
> version every time.
I think you're making slightly misleading comparisons there, by picking the two
extremes (and ignoring the possibly for shorter explicit names) - the explicit
parameter name surely doesn't preclude the use of return-to-set functionality?
So the comparison could equally be:
```
public function __construct(
public string $phone { set => $this->sanitizePhone($value); }
public string $phone { set(string $v) => $this->sanitizePhone($v); }
){}
```
> If PHP has been moving away from weird and inexplicable magic, it's also been
> moving away from needless boilerplate. (Constructor promotion being the best
> example, but not the only; types themselves are a factor here, as are arrow
> functions.) As the whole point of this RFC is to make writing common code
> easier, requiring redundant boilerplate for it to work is actively
> counter-productive.
>
> So what I'd suggest instead is "specify the full signature if you want a
> custom name OR wider type; or omit the param list entirely to get a same-type
> $value variable, which 99% of the time is all you need." We get that in
> return for documenting "$value is the default", which for someone who has
> already figured out $this, should be a very low effort to learn.
I get your point, and to expand on what I said in the first email - if removing
the implicit mode would mean people vote against the RFC, then that's a worse
result, IMO (this is why I suggest a secondary vote - perfect is th enemy of
good and all that). I personally think the implicit variables will result in
less-readable code, but I also know that I'm free to not use the implicit
parameter in code that I write, so I trust those with a more accurate finger on
the pulse of the voters to know whether the implicit `$value` parameter will
help or hinder the RFC to pass.
>
>> Also, a small nitpick: The link to your attributeutils repo in the
>> examples page, is broken, and it would be nice to see a few examples
>> showing the explicit version of the hooks.
>
> Link fixed, thanks. What do you mean explicit version of the hooks?
I meant hooks that don't use the implicit "magic" variables (i.e. specify the
parameter on set() specify the full property name when accessing the backing
store). Given your first response I guess this request is a little moot,
assuming the examples are updated to remove use of `$field`. Maybe the RFC or
an example already covers it and I skipped over it, but it'd be good to make it
clear *exactly* what the equivalent of an implicit `$value` parameter is.
>
> --Larry Garfield
Cheers
Stephen
