> On 8 Aug 2022, at 20:21, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2022 10:09, Stephen Reay wrote:
>> The RFC states that it’s to keep consistency with `readonly`, because __set
>> on a readonly property that’s initialised throws an error - but isn’t that
>> because of the nature of it being readon
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022, at 10:23, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> Your use case might not need them (though actually you are needing them,
> you just don't use them as language feature but via the static-analysis
> annotation)
>
> But when discussing language features we should always keep ALL users of
>
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 10:38 PM Rowan Tommins
wrote:
> On 07/08/2022 11:54, Lynn wrote:
> > Reading "public private", "public protected", or "protected private"
> > reads really weird `public private(set) static self $property`.
>
>
> Interesting, it seems that you've unconsciously broken it up a
On 08/08/2022 10:14, Marco Pivetta wrote:
As for `readonly`, the reason we sometimes **cannot** use `readonly` is
because current `clone` semantics can't work around `readonly` rules
(discussed in the `readonly` RFC):https://3v4l.org/og8bn
If we solved that, I think `private(set)` would become ev
On 08/08/2022 10:09, Stephen Reay wrote:
The RFC states that it’s to keep consistency with `readonly`, because __set on a readonly
property that’s initialised throws an error - but isn’t that because of the nature of it
being readonly, rather than because of the visibility rules? The error give
On 07/08/2022 22:48, Larry Garfield wrote:
Something like public private:set (colon instead of parens) would work just as
well, if the () are confusing somehow, but that doesn't feel like a common
problem. And it would lose the parallelism with Swift.
I wonder if the reasoning for Swift's s
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022, at 3:54 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> 3.) I have concerns about the proposed methods isProtectedSet() and
> isPrivateSet().
>
> These names feels like we are asking if some thing "Set" is "Protected" or
> "Private" where no such "thing" exists in this context.
>
> In other
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:09 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> Ilija Tovilo and I are happy to present the first new RFC for PHP 8.3:
> Asymmetric Visibility.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility
>
> Details are in the RFC, but it's largely a copy of Swift's support for the
> same.
>
> --
>
> On 6 Aug 2022, at 00:08, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Ilija Tovilo and I are happy to present the first new RFC for PHP 8.3:
> Asymmetric Visibility.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility
>
> Details are in the RFC, but it's largely a copy of Swift's support for the
> same.
>
>
Hey Andreas,
On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 at 10:23, Andreas Heigl wrote:
>
> Your use case might not need them (though actually you are needing them,
> you just don't use them as language feature but via the static-analysis
> annotation)
>
> But when discussing language features we should always keep ALL
Hey Marco.
On 08.08.22 10:14, Marco Pivetta wrote:
Heyo Andreas, Casper,
On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 at 10:03, Andreas Heigl wrote:
Hey Casper.
On 08.08.22 09:54, Casper Langemeijer wrote:
Hi all,
In the discussion I sometimes see the terminology 'readonly' and
'writable' being used. This is conf
Heyo Andreas, Casper,
On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 at 10:03, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> Hey Casper.
>
> On 08.08.22 09:54, Casper Langemeijer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In the discussion I sometimes see the terminology 'readonly' and
> 'writable' being used. This is confusing because when the property is an
>
Hi Larry,
niedz., 7 sie 2022 o 21:02 Larry Garfield
napisał(a):
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022, at 5:54 AM, Lynn wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 12:34 PM Rowan Tommins
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Can you expand on where you think the ambiguity / implicitness is? As I
> >> understand it, the RFC is proposing e
Hey Casper.
On 08.08.22 09:54, Casper Langemeijer wrote:
Hi all,
In the discussion I sometimes see the terminology 'readonly' and 'writable'
being used. This is confusing because when the property is an object that
itself is mutable, there is nothing read-only about it.
The terminology in th
Hi all,
In the discussion I sometimes see the terminology 'readonly' and 'writable'
being used. This is confusing because when the property is an object that
itself is mutable, there is nothing read-only about it.
The terminology in the RFC seems right to me, and overall it seems solid.
Howeve
15 matches
Mail list logo
