On Wed, Dec 17, 2025, at 12:02 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > Am 2025-12-17 16:26, schrieb Larry Garfield: >> * We have decided on an approach for magic methods. The updated RFC >> text explains it in more detail, but in short, "if __isset(), then use >> that to determine readable. Otherwise, __get() implies readable. >> __set() implies writeable." That should handle the use cases Nicolas >> was interested in. > > That works for me. I didn't feel particularly strongly either way. > >> We consider the RFC feature complete at this point. Baring any further >> substantive discussion, expect a vote in January after the blackout >> period ends. > > I don't have further comments about the semantics themselves, but have > one further clarification question: > >> The property has not been unset(). If it has, follow the same __isset >> check as above > > Should this read “the same __get check” instead?
Hm, yes, you are correct. Updated. > And one note with regard to process: Don't forget to add a link to the > discussion (https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129101) to the RFC. Added. Oh, and one other note: It turns out that in English, both "writeable" and "writable" are nominally valid. The latter seems more common (and my spellchecker only recognizing the latter), so we've standardized on the non-E version throughout the RFC. (The code already was.) --Larry Garfield
