Nikita,
2013/1/10 Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Steve Clay <st...@mrclay.org> wrote: > > > On 1/8/13 2:56 AM, Christian Stoller wrote: > > > >> But the way 'nullable' properties are defined is not very intuitive and > >> unclean, in my opinion. Stas has already mentioned that. > >> `public DateTime $date = NULL;` // this looks like the property is > >> initialized with null, but it does not show that the property is > 'nullable' > >> > > > > Much agreed. After instantiation, these shouldn't behave differently: > > > > public $foo = null; > > public Foo $foo = null; > > > > Sure, method signatures have special behavior based on a default value, > > but IMO: > > 1. those semantics aren't entirely intuitive to begin with > > 2. property initializers aren't method sigs > > 3. the semantics would apply only to some properties > > > > > > > > public DateTime? $date; > >> > >> In C# the question mark after a type is a short hand for a generic > >> Nullable type. > >> > > > > I like that it's an established practice of doing exactly what we're > > trying to do. > > > > Could we not just make it obvious?: > > > > public Foo|null $foo; > > > > I updated the RFC to include the current state regarding default value and > nullability: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax > > One question that still needs to be discussed is what syntax regarding > parentheses we want to use if this makes it. Currently both set { } and > set($foo) { } style accessors are supported. Do we want to keep those two > with the new syntax? > > Nikita > > PS: I hope I'm not interrupting all those heated annotations discussion too > much ^^ > In the RFC, one thing is not clear: How to provide typehints for nullable properties that actually have accessors. Will it be like this? public DateTime $date = null { get { ... } set { ... } } Lazare INEPOLOGLOU Ingénieur Logiciel