Re: [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, at 10:01 AM, Frederik Bosch wrote: > Hi Rowan, > > Our discussion sums up the pros and cons. Whether yield is > complicated/confusing or not, is maybe personal. The same applies to > getting $this->prop resulting in different calls. Larry has removed > $field from the RFC completely now, while I think it was a sensible > approach to read the current backing value. I think I have laid out > another alternative to writing with the yield/return suggestion. It's up > to the authors of the RFC to do something with it, or not. Thanks for > taking the suggestion seriously. > > Regards, > Frederik Ilija and I have discussed this, and we both agree that yield is not a viable option. There is no generator or generator-like behavior involved in hooks at all, and a syntax that implies there is would be very misleading. And adjusting the code to make it actually generator-based would make the code considerably more complex, and most likely slower. It figures that people would start speaking up in favor of $field right *after* I removed it from the RFC text. :-P At the moment, we're comfortable either direction. (It hasn't been removed from the code yet.) The main question is whether the trade-off of an implicit variable name and the potential for confusion is outweighed by the clarity about what is happening and where. It sounds like most people are just really, really pissed off by an implicit variable, but that's based on the as-usual highly unscientific survey of "who replies to an email." I will probably start a poll shortly to help get a better sense of what the actual voting population thinks. --Larry Garfield