Re: [RFC] isReadable/isWriteable property reflection

Le jeu. 4 déc. 2025 à 17:39, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> a écrit : > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 8:05 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote: > > Le jeu. 6 nov. 2025 à 00:28, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> a > écrit : > >> In other news, Ilija and I said a year ago that we'd take a swing at > adding isReadable/isWriteable methods to ReflectionProperty. Took a while, > but here we are. A strangely small RFC from us: > >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isreadable-iswriteable > >> > > > > > > Thanks for this. > > I also think the auto-scope is [NOT] a good idea. You state that 90% of > use > > cases will need this but my experience doesn't back this claim. The > > only cases where I had to check for read/writeable were out of the > > local scope, so I'd say 100% of my experience goes against that 90% > > number ;) Joke aside, it'd be just fine to let ppl be explicit. That's > > better than "oops I forgot to give the correct scope" bugs. > > > > About magic methods, one unsets a property only to have __get/__set > > called. Existing code works with this assumption. This means we have to > > return true IMHO. Magic methods are just generic hooks also. Which > > means they should behave the same. > > > > Nicolas > > Well, the only people who seem to have an opinion don't like "static", so > we've removed it. RFC updated. > > As for __get/__set, that's so far one vote for ignore (Tim), and one for > always-true (Nicolas). Not a consensus. :-) > > Nicolas, can you clarify with an example if/how ignore would break > things? > > I think once we settle that question and the cooldown passes we're ready > for a vote, though at this point that means January. > > I can try to build a synthetic example but the gist is: A class that starts with only properties and no __get() should be able to move to a __get()-based hooking in a later version without breaking code that uses isReadable(). That on its own should be enough to settle the desired behavior :)