Re: [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2
| From: | Alexandru Pătrănescu | Date: | Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:53:45 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-122624@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:36 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 8:49 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
> > Hi Larry
> >
> > Thanks again for both of your work on this, I'm really hopeful this
> passes.
> >
> > Was there ever any further discussion/resolution/decision about the use
> > an explicit
virtual keyword, and the related flag for
> > creation of a
> > backing store? I thought it was discussed by several people but I don't
> > recall seeing any eventual consensus, and it looks to my eye that it
> > hasn't changed from the original proposal: i.e. it's 'magic' and
> > $this->{__PROPERTY__} won't work?
> >
> > Is that correct?
>
> We looked into virtual, and considered it, but determined that
> it
> wouldn't actually work because of inheritance. Details are in a new FAQ
> entry:
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks#why_no_explicit_virtual_flag
>
>
>
Nice that you added the details there why explicit virtual is not a good
idea.
So, if the parent class changes between virtual and non-virtual, while the
child class is virtual, the only tiny BC break will be in the reflection as
we will see a change between virtual and non-virtual?
Alex