On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:50 PM Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> This will be my last reply to this thread. Fundamentally:
>
> class User {
> public ?int $id;
> public ?string $preferred_name;
> public ?string $username;
> }
>
> ^ This permits null properties at all times. This is acceptab
On 21/09/2018 08:58, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
No matter how you twist it, uninitialized is the new null.
I'm fine with unintialized as an implementation detail that
ensures you can't read from properties while the constructor
is busy establishing the invariant.
I'm not at all fine with unintialize
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 16:52, Larry Garfield wrote:
> I think the distinction here is that one group is arguing for "state of
> the
> data assertions" while the RFC as implemented is "setter assertion
> shorthand".
> That is, it doesn't assert that a value IS a given type, but that it can
> only
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Arnold Daniels wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:50 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Arnold Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> > Variable includes have proper purposes, like for a (PSR-4) autoloader.
>> > This
>> >
Hi Arnold,
Please remember to click "Reply All" / "Reply List" rather than just
"Reply", to make sure the list is included in your replies. Right now, most
of us are only seeing half the conversation:
https://externals.io/message/103196
Cheers,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Hi Arnold,
>
> Please remember to click "Reply All" / "Reply List" rather than just
> "Reply", to make sure the list is included in your replies. Right now, most
> of us are only seeing half the conversation:
> https://externals.io/messa
On 19.09.2018 at 19:57, BohwaZ wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 19:41:11 +0200 / "Christoph M. Becker"
> said :
>
>> PR #2698[2] seems to require an RFC. IMHO, it's best to present RFCs
>> and voting on them as early as possible (instead of rushing them at
>> the last moment). :)
>
> Yeah there wa
On Friday, September 21, 2018 4:20:20 AM CDT Rowan Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 16:52, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > I think the distinction here is that one group is arguing for "state of
> > the
> > data assertions" while the RFC as implemented is "setter assertion
> > shorthand".
> > Tha
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 15:11, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Perhaps another disconnect here is that, in practice, the consumer of an
> object property is, in my experience, almost always "me". I almost never
> have
> public properties on my objects. On the rare occasion I do, it's for a
> "struct obj
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM Lester Caine wrote:
> Ignoring the debate on uninitialized/null ... not all objects ARE
> invariant
hence nullable types.
> and there are very good reasons for not setting values for
> everything, but it seems that these types of object are deemed to be
> 'bad c
On 21.09.2018 at 17:25, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> this doesn't provide *any* additional guarantees:
>
> class Foo {
> public int $bar;
> }
>
> $foo = new Foo(); // invalid state allowed
>
> $foo->bar = 123; // valid state
>
> $foo->bar = null; // invalid state NOT allowed?!
>
> [snip]
>
> In
On Friday, September 21, 2018 10:25:50 AM CDT Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM Lester Caine wrote:
> > Ignoring the debate on uninitialized/null ... not all objects ARE
> > invariant
>
> hence nullable types.
>
> > and there are very good reasons for not setting values fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
