Re: [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors

This proposal looks really good to me. It cuts out a lot of syntax and boilerplate for a commonly used case. However, there is one issue that I know somebody is going to raise: Argument: If you change the value of the property without using the setter then get could return something that has a type mismatch with the type-hint. If I understand the current RFC for properties correctly, the only place that a property can be directly written to without the accessor is inside of the __setProperty method. This almost nullifies the argument completely. The only other place for possible error would be assigning a value in the constructor that does not match the type-hint. However, because we adding a new syntax we *could* disallow assigning a value if it really was that problematic. I do not personally feel that would be necessary. I feel that this argument is not weighty enough to stop the proposal for this improved syntax.