Re: [RFC[ Property accessor hooks, take 2

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 4:53 PM, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > 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 I believe that is correct, yes. --Larry Garfield