Re: Readonly properties and interfaces

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, at 7:32 AM, Brent Roose wrote: > Hi internals > > With the readonly properties RFC almost certainly accepted, I'd like to > discuss an idea that's slightly related to them. > > One of the problems that readonly properties solve is that they reduce > the overhead of writing getters and setters. This is especially > noticeable in objects that hold lots of data — data transfer objects, > value objects, entities. And while public readonly properties will be a > style of programming that not everyone likes, it's clear from the vote > on the readonly RFC, as well as the community feedback, that it's a > feature wanted by many. > > That brings me to interfaces: currently we're only allowed to define > methods on interfaces; historically this makes sense, since interfaces > are meant to define behaviour, and not the implementation. Most OO > language define behaviour using methods, and state using properties, > which in turn are used to define the implementation. > > But now, readonly properties are added. > > Suddenly, class properties aren't just used for state anymore, they are > also used to expose that state in an immutable way to the outside, > where we'd use public getters (behaviour) and private properties > (state) in the past, we can now combine them as public readonly > properties. Wouldn't that imply that there are at least some cases > where interface properties could also make sense? > > A simple example: > > Imagine we've got 10 different classes that share some behaviour: they > are identifiable by a UUID. Next, imagine we've got a function that can > specifically work with all classes that have a UUID. Proper OO teaches > us to write an interface for this behaviour Identifiable or > HasUuid > or something alike. This interface would probably require its > implementers to expose a getUuid(): string method. > > Without interfaces being able to define properties, we'll now have to > implement a getUuid() method on all our 10 classes, nullifying > the > advantage we got from using public readonly string $uuid in the > first > place. If, on the other hand, this functionality was supported, we > could write our interface like so, and wouldn't have to worry about any > more boilerplate code: > > ``` > interface HasUuid > { > public readonly string $uuid; > } > ``` > > With the addition of readonly properties, now seems like a good time to > discuss changing these rules. I realise these questions touch the core > ideas of OO, so I reckon some people might have another opinion and I'd > like to hear your thoughts. > > To give you some more reading material, there is a precedent for > interface properties in other languages: > > - TypeScript supports them [1] > - C# supports them, albeit using property accessors [2] > - Swift supports them via Protocols [3] > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. > > Kind regards > Brent > > [1] > > https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-compatibility.html > > <�e�� > ^�[|M��W��https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-compatibility.html> > [2] > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/interface-properties�t1a�~!/�i��r� > � > <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/interface-properties> > > [3] > https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Protocols.html > > <https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/Protocols.html> > The property accessor RFC (which didn't get to a vote) discussed this, and specifically proposed making properties part of the interface for... basically all the reasons given here. My preference would be to add property accessors in 8.2 (at least the asymmetric visibility part), and then redefine readonly properties as a shorthand for a "get only" implicit accessor property; which, if I recall correctly, is essentially the same semantics as readonly. (I didn't check the RFC; I'm going by memory here.) That would include interface properties by nature. --Larry Garfield