Re: [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors

Am 08.01.2013 10:03, schrieb Lazare Inepologlou:

The fact is that the existing syntax for nullable type hinting has its own problems. For example, this is not possible: function foo( Bar $bar = null , $mandatory ) { ... }

Sure it's possible;) I did not get a syntax error for that...I even use that case many times in my code exactly for that purpose, to allow $bar to be null but require $mandatory to be defined explicitly.

I would love to have the question mark syntax for both properties and argument type hinting.

Introducing a BC-Break and/or yet another syntax? Is that worth it?

This does not apply in all cases. Here is an example of a property that is guaranteed not to be null: class Foo { private $_date; public DateTime $date {

     get {
       return is_null($date) ? new DateTime() : $this->date;
     }
     set {
       $this->date = $value;
     }

} }

The property is still null;) Only the return value of the getter will not be null. But that's not the issue, is it? I am not arguing the case of NOT allowing null, Stas wanted to always allow null because of this reason and not have a special syntax to declare this.