Re: [RFC][Vote announcement] Property hooks

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:42 PM Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone > > Heads-up: Larry and I would like to start the vote of the property > hooks RFC tomorrow: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks > > We have worked long and hard on this RFC, and hope that we have found > some middle-ground that works for the majority. One last concern we > have not officially clarified on the list: > > https://externals.io/message/122445#122667 > > >> I personally do not feel strongly about whether asymmetric types make it into the > >> initial implementation. Larry does, however, and I think it is not fair to exclude them without > >> providing any concrete reasons not to. [snip] > > > > My concern is more about the external impact of what is effectively a change to the type > > system of the language: [snip] will tools like PhpStan and Psalm require complex changes to analyse > > code using such properties? > > In particular, this paragraph is referencing the ability to widen the > accepted $value parameter type of the set hook, described at the > bottom of https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks#set. I have > talked > to Ondřej Mirtes, the maintainer of PHPStan, and he confirmed that > this should not be complex to implement in PHPStan. In fact, PHPStan > already offers the @property-read and @property-write class > annotations, which can be used to describe "virtual" properties > handled within __get/__set, already providing asymmetric types of > sorts. Hence, this concern should be a non-issue. > > Thank you to everybody who has contributed to the discussion! > > Ilija I was playing around with 3v4l.org. Is the implementation up-to-date there? I don't have any hard objections at the moment, but after playing with it for a while, I do kind of wonder if it's a lot of complexity for what is effectively a niche feature because: 1. It does not support asymmetric visibility for get/set. Having a public getter and private setter seems really natural. 2. You can't access accessors for "siblings". 3. You can't do by-reference set (important for arrays). 4. You can't satisfy a parent's readonly property with a getter in a child.. Now, points 2 through 4 are fairly minor and niche by themselves, but if we take all these restrictions as a whole... I'm a bit worried. I also don't like the syntax. I can ignore this for the vote and still vote yes because I don't like the syntax, but with these other things... I'm worried.