Re: Re: [RFC][Discussion] Har monise "untyped" and "typed" properties

On 23 November 2023 01:37:06 GMT, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote: >What you describe in the last sentence is what was initially designed and implemented by the >RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_properties_v2 (section >Overloaded Properties). > >However, it was later changed to the current semantics (unset() needed in order to trigger >__get()) in https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/4974 Good find. So not only is it not specified this way in the RFC, it actually made it into a live release, then someone complained and we rushed out a more complicated version "to avoid WTF". That's really unfortunate. I'm not at all convinced by the argument in the linked bug report - whether you get an error or an unexpected call to __get, the solution is to assign a valid value to the property. And making the behaviour different after unset() just hides the user's problem, which is that they didn't expect to *ever* have a call to __get for that property. But I guess I'm 4 years too late to make that case. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]