Re: Readonly properties and interfaces

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, at 10:33 PM, Brent Roose wrote: > > 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. > > > > I thought the RFC didn't go to vote because Nikita didn't feel like it > warranted the complexity: > > > This RFC overlaps with the Property Accessors RFC. In particular, it implements the > > “only implicit get” aspect, though not with the exact same semantics. As mentioned in the RFC, > > I'm not convinced that the full complexity of accessors is truly warranted. Supporting readonly > > properties and asymmetric visibility would cover a significant portion of the use-cases, at a lower > > language complexity cost. [1] > > Is there any reason to assume property accessors will be reconsidered for 8.2? Nothing is guaranteed. :-) However, Nikita said very clearly in the readonly discussion that he doesn't see it as precluding the asymmetric visibility portion of accessors, which is still simpler than full on explicit accessor methods. We "just" have to convince Nikita that upgrading readonly to asymmetric visibility in 8.2 (with or without explicit methods) is justified, and that it should include the interface portion of that, too. --Larry Garfield