Re: [RFC] Static property asymmetric visibility

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, at 3:57 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > Am 2024-11-25 17:52, schrieb Larry Garfield: >> Static property asymmetric visibility was left out of the original RFC, >> because it seemed like it would be hard and of little use. Turns out, >> Ilija found a way to make it easy. (Ilija is smart.) So here's a >> small RFC to add aviz to static properties, because we can't think of a >> reason to NOT do so. >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static-aviz > > The RFC has the status “Draft” and does not appear to be linked in the > overview at https://wiki.php.net/rfc. Is it intended to be open > for > discussion yet? Paperwork oversight on my part. Fixed now, thanks. > Regarding the RFC contents: I am not sure the behavior of > private(set) > implying final is obvious for static properties. Consider this > example > (https://3v4l.org/bvQjM): > > <?php > > class Foo { > public static $baz; > } > > class Bar extends Foo { > public static $baz; > } > > Foo::$baz = '2'; > Bar::$baz = '1'; > var_dump(Foo::$baz, Bar::$baz); > > Non-static properties only have $this-> for property access, > but with > static properties you can distinguish between self:: and > static::, > which makes overriding a private(set) static property > meaningful, > because they are actually independent properties. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Hm, interesting point. I am not sure of the best way to model that. Thinking aloud, my expectation would be that it behaves similarly to how final static methods would behave. Which appears to be a syntax error: https://3v4l.org/j8mp0#v8.4.1 So, shouldn't properties do the same? --Larry Garfield