Re: [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

Hi On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote:

To clarify my position: * The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same restriction level than the get visibility. * When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:

      * If readonly is present, the set visibility is private (as of today);
      * otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility (again, as of today).

* We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write protected protected(set) string $foo; when you could just write protected string $foo for the same effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write public function() when you could just write function() for the same effect. We leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or the long form is preferred.

I agree with that. -------------- As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section in the RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) which I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already split into way-to-many threads and also the poll. Best regards Tim Düsterhus