Re: [RFC][Vote] Property Hooks

On Sunday, 9 June, 2024 at 19:03, Nikita Popov <php@npopov.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 18:43, Larry Garfield wrote: > > The vote for the Property Hooks RFC is now open: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks > > Voting will close on Monday 29 April, afternoonish Chicago time. > > > The other thing that stood out to me are the short-hand notations using > =>. There was a prior RFC on the topic ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions), which has been > declined. That > RFC would have introduced => ... as a general shorthand for { return ....; }. > > The shorthand notation for get is compatible with that formulation. > However, the shorthand notation for set is not. In that case => ... isn't > short for { return ...; }, but rather for { $this->prop = ...; }. > > This seems pretty unfortunate to me, and possibly closes the door on > revisiting a general short function syntax in the future. Mostly I'm > scratching my head at why this was included in the proposal at all, as I > would not expect this use of the set hook to be common enough to justify a > shorthand. The common case is a guard that checks the value without > modifying it. > > Putting this to the "would this shorthand have passed if it were > introduced by a separate RFC on top of the base implementation" test, I > think the answer would have been a clear "no". > > Regards, > Nikita > Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I understand the short-hand notation in setter hook in combination with https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short-functions: ``` final class Foo { // Before public string $x { set { $this->x = $this->transformX($value); } } private function transformX(string $value): string => trim($value); // After public string $x { set => trim($value); } } ``` So it's kinda consistent if you say that only the right side of the property assignment is replaced with short-hand notation, not the whole assignment. And then $this->x = is implicit. -- Regards, Valentin