Re: [RFC] Readonly Properties

> On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:59, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > >> >> 2. If the aim of this RFC is to replace the getFoo() pattern with the use of "readonly >> public $foo" properties, a primary difference will be that a getFoo() method can be declared in >> an interface, whereas a "readonly public $foo" property cannot be. Thus code making use of >> interfaces will not be able to employ this feature. And I don't think that allowing properties >> in interfaces is reasonable at this point, because the implementations will be limited to >> simple-storage properties - only with more comprehensive property accessor support would >> implementations be allowed to use more complex backing code. > > Right, interfaces currently can’t declare properties and I’m not going to change that in > this RFC. If I revisit getters and setters, that would be changed. Still, I think there is > usefulness to this without interfaces… it’s just more limited, sadly. > > It would work quite well with getters and setters and interfaces, if later added. Within > interfaces, readonly could be used to avoid compelling implementing classes to support writing: > > interface Point { > public readonly $x, $y; > } > > But without preventing implementing classes from supporting it. I added a little Future Scope section on this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties#puture_scope -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/