Re: [RFC] Typed Properties

It's been a few weeks since this has first landed here, and we're just wasting time in relatively silly discussions at this point: - As I said earlier, this patch has already been tested against some extremely tricky scenarios, so from a userland perspective it is safe for inclusion. If you don't have confidence in something related to it, please write a test case and help out. - can we get a yes/no from the RMs on whether we'll have the time window to (potentially) get this voted and (*if* passed) merged? Shoot out a mail with the decision, please. We could have a vote for which version to include this in, if that's really such a big issue. - can we split out discussions on 8.0 scope? Minor versions are indeed for features. If PHP 8.0 lacks interesting/marketing features, that's a different story. - Nikita/Bob: can this be voted upon right after the RMs have taken a decision? Anything blocking missing? - Is the reference issue reported by Nicolas a blocker? Nicolas, can you clarify here? Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/ On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:24 AM, André Rømcke <andre.romcke@ez.no> wrote: > On 7 Jul 2018, at 23:13, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: php@golemon.com [mailto:php@golemon.com] On Behalf Of Sara > >> Golemon > >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:36 PM > >> To: Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> > >> Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>; stas@php.net; Björn Larsson > >> <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com>; Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>; > >> Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>; Marco Pivetta > >> <ocramius@gmail.com>; PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net> > >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Typed Properties > >> > >> Just want to be annoying about this since the currently scheduled fork > date for > >> PHP-7.3 is 11 days off. > >> 1/ Do we have *ANY* objections to additional alpha(s) to accommodate > Typed > >> Props? (I would propose two additional alphas) 2/ Do we actually need > to hold a > >> formal vote? (If so, that vote should start *now*) > > > > Sara, > > > > I do see a couple of issues here. > > > > First, it may be a personal thing, but I feel that the flexibility > towards adding this is very contrasty with the inflexibility shown as we > headed towards the PHP 7.0 feature freeze - inflexibility that resulted in > a rushed (and IMHO wrong) decision regarding how to implement the > non-strict types. For the record - as I said back then - I think that the > right way is to be flexible - the dates are just dates, and are - in all > honesty - not that important - it’s the severe inconsistency that bothers > me. > > > Regardless of typed properties this sounds like something that should be > tackled as an independent topic. (It could in theory, if accepted, be a new > type flag introduced in 7.4 and made default in 8.0 that affect all type > usage consistently.) > > > > > > Secondly, and somewhat related - typed properties isn't a small > feature. It is, in fact, a pretty huge one. Making exceptions for a > fairly minor feature or some extra deprecation is one thing. Making an > exception for something as fundamental as that feels wrong. > > > > Even though Nikita's proposal and implementation look pretty solid, > something as fundamental as that should go through a substantial active > discussion period (which didn't really happen here as it wasn't clear > whether this was headed for an exceptional 7.3 addition or not) - and > independently - should perhaps go hand-in-hand with fixing the flaws of the > non-strict types - something we can do in PHP 8. If we do the latter, then > perhaps, just perhaps, we can introduce it hand-in-hand with typed > variables - and if we do, it will be sensible to do it at the same time and > not in a gradual rollout. Personally, I think even independently of typed > variables, typed properties feel like an 8.0 feature, not a 7.x feature. > > > While I agree this is big, (from user land it’s fantastic), and should > only go in if solid. It does contradict your argument the other day about > being careful what to push into 8.0 scope as core resources are scarce. > > So if we look at it from that perspective, then spreading the risk is > essentially safer. > >