Re: [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 11/29/22 21:29, Larry Garfield wrote: >> Thank you everyone for the feedback. Based on this thread, we've made two changes to >> the RFC: >> >> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now. I've added a >> section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, but we'll do that >> in the future when we can all focus on the various nuances of just that piece. >> >> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer. That also included Ilija and I >> digging into all the nuances that are already present. The text may still look a bit complex, but >> that's because the existing logic is already complex with readonly. Long story short, the >> a-viz RFC does not change anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it just >> inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's consistent. >> >> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes. Baring any major >> need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly after New Years. >> > > Okay, then I'd like to officially "request" that the abbreviated form > [1] is dropped: > > I believe 'protected(set) string $foo' is easily confused with > 'protected string $foo' at a simple glance. > > Also any implicit rules are something developers will need to learn by > heart, whereas an explicit 'public protected(set) string $foo' could > reasonably be understood by someone without any PHP experience and some > basic experience of OO concepts. > > Having two separate explicit keywords also makes it much clearer that > asymmetric visibility is involved, because it's also asymmetric in the code. > > I believe the only benefit of the abbreviated form is saving 6 > keystrokes (+ one hit to the spacebar) and I don't believe it's worth > the lack of clarity for an important property of the defined property. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus > > [1] > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form Does anyone else have feelings on this point? IMO, the shorthand makes a lot of sense when used with readonly to avoid lines getting just annoyingly long, but without it I can see the argument for not allowing it; it's about a wash in terms of length with readonly today. I'm comfortable going with the consensus on this one for now. --Larry Garfield