Hi,
According to my knowledge this path doesn't implement only string and int
types but whole of type hinting.
So your example usage of string and int maybe is unneded 'additional'
check, but in other cases where you expect objects which implements
specific inteface or class it's huge advantage when on runtime PHP checks
if specific property is set properly - has proper type.
Proper typed 'var' sure could be implemented in userland by complex type
checks in setters, but do we really need that setters/getters hell with
lots of `is_a`, `instanceof`, `class_implements` checks?
There's something I now for sure, observed this on voting for RFC's from
some time - if this path will be voted no there won't be any RFC with same
functionality in near future.
IMHO people writing RFC's and implementing patches they will not wanted to
provide another RFC's and another implementation.
Regards,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
2016-06-22 15:06 GMT+02:00 Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com>:
> Top-posting due to mobile conn.
>
> I voted no due to flaws introduced in the language by the current RFC.
>
> The performance impact is irrelevant.
> On Jun 22, 2016 11:38, "Michał Brzuchalski" <mic...@brzuchalski.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I may don't have voting privileges but as an 10yr PHP development
>> practitioner I can't believe that such big and awesome feature like Typed
>> Properties minimally can't have enought votes to be a part of PHP language
>> (26/(26+16) = 62% and that's not enoght to 2/3+1vote).
>> There are plenty of places where type hinting actually exists and looks
>> like Typed Properties can be great complement of type system in PHP
>> language with the ability to still be so dynamic language as it is right
>> now.
>> The impact of 0.1% (or even more) of performance IMHO should not have no
>> significant meaning.
>> Someone earlier wrote that properties types should be ensured by
>> frameworks
>> - but that doesn't never happen, the impact on performance while
>> dynamically type checking inside setters would be few times greates than
>> this patch impact. Not to mention the fact that the feature itself
>> suggests
>> good practice.
>> Without it, we will still have setters/getters hell, and there will newer
>> be safe frameworks instad there will always be some hack's inside
>> subclasses or some other ways.
>> Without it, PHP will newer be aqualed such as Java, C# even Hack language
>> -
>> there still will continue to be a big gap, due to the lack of type
>> hinting.
>> Sure you could say start to code in Hack it has type safier system, it has
>> generics, annotations and other features which from time to time are in
>> PHP
>> RFC's but most of time they are declined and Hack lacks of great IDE
>> support like PHPStorm which I use and love because of refactor, code
>> styling, run&debug etc.
>> PHP language has poor type safety and IMHO without such patches it will
>> never evolve into type safety programming language.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Michał Brzuchalski
>>
>> 2016-06-13 11:40 GMT+02:00 Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>:
>>
>> > Morning,
>> >
>> > > This wouldn't affect the performance of untyped properties at all.
>> >
>> > There are extra instructions in that code.
>> >
>> > When the code you have is only 5 instructions, adding 1 more instruction
>> > makes a 20% increase in instructions ...
>> >
>> > That is what we are looking at in these micro benchmarks; The number of
>> > instructions is so small, that even the small difference is measurable.
>> >
>> > Of course you can measure the difference, and obviously there are going
>> to
>> > be more instructions, but we should only care about what effects real
>> world
>> > code.
>> >
>> > This doesn't effect real world code.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Rasmus Schultz <ras...@mindplay.dk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Pretend I know (basically) nothing about how PHP was implemented,
>> because
>> > > I don't ;-)
>> > >
>> > > But I don't understand why regular property updates should be
>> affected by
>> > > this at all?
>> > >
>> > > If I had to implement type-checked properties in plain PHP, I would do
>> > > something like this...
>> > >
>> > > /**
>> > > * @property int $price
>> > > */
>> > > class Product
>> > > {
>> > > private $_price;
>> > >
>> > > public function __set($name, $value) {
>> > > if ($name === "price") {
>> > > if (!is_int($value)) {
>> > > throw new UnexpectedValueException("...");
>> > > }
>> > > $this->_price = $price;
>> > > return;
>> > > }
>> > > throw new RuntimeException("undefined property {$name}");
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > public function __get($name) {
>> > > return $this->{"_{$name}"};
>> > > }
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > I would have guessed an implementation of type-checked properties
>> would
>> > > work in much the same way.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, it wouldn't use "_" as a prefix for the underlying
>> property,
>> > > but some other magic byte, much like how private properties are
>> > internally
>> > > prefixed with a magic byte, right?
>> > >
>> > > This wouldn't affect the performance of untyped properties at all.
>> > >
>> > > Of course typed property writes would be more expensive, but that's
>> to be
>> > > expected.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Dmitry,
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > I hardly worked on implementation of this patch for a week, but I
>> > still
>> > >> don't like it.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It makes 15% slowdown on each property update in existing PHP code
>> > >> (without types), and I don't see a way to improve this.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Update of typed properties is going to be even more expensive.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Benchmark results are included into RFC (and not changed with the
>> > >> latest version of the patch).
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -1.
>> > >>
>> > >> If we are concerned about performance, DbC would be the only solution
>> > >> for this kind of problem. i.e. Validate fully during development, do
>> > >> minimum validation on production. DbC helps type inference also.
>> There
>> > >> may not be enough time for discussion, but do you think there is
>> > >> enough time for implementation? I suppose implementation is
>> > >> straightforward, so it might be OK to have RFC w/o implementation. We
>> > >> have 2 options anyway. It's waste of time for having 2
>> > >> implementations. Would you like to proceed the RFC for 7.1?
>> > >>
>> > >> Regards,
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Yasuo Ohgaki
>> > >> yohg...@ohgaki.net
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> pozdrawiam
>> --
>> Michał Brzuchalski
>>
>
--
pozdrawiam
--
Michał Brzuchalski
