Re: [VOTE] Undefined Property Error Promotion

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Côme Chilliet wrote: > Le lundi 25 avril 2022, 18:19:33 CEST Rowan Tommins a écrit : >> Look at how the untyped property behaves in this example: >> https://3v4l.org/nClNs The property disappears from >> var_dump(), but is >> not actually deleted from the object, as seen by it still being private >> when assigned a new value. Given that we have the magic "uninitialized" >> state, and we're proposing to make reading an unset property an error, >> it would make more sense for it to show as >> '["untyped":"Foo":private] => >> uninitialized(mixed)' > > I second that it would make sense for an untyped property to behave the > same as a typed one with type mixed. > Getting a behavior change by adding a mixed typing to an untyped > property is highly unexpected. > > Côme Changing the logic so that untyped properties are essentially a shorthand for typing mixed (like no-visibility is a shorthand for public) could be beneficial in the long run. It would be more consistent, and with the robustness around null-based tooling now that also works with undefined, it would probably not be too drastic a break if people knew to prepare for it (vis, happen in 9). I could get behind that, but that should be its own separate RFC. --Larry Garfield