Re: [RFC] Readonly Properties

On 24/10/2014 12:54, Andrea Faulds wrote:

On 24 Oct 2014, at 10:29, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be> wrote: Thanks for the work (again). It's an interesting small idea but I'd much prefer revisiting the original getter/setter RFC [1] which had a majority but just fell short of the 66% mark. This RFC only implements parts of the getter/setter functionality (readonly properties) but it does not address the fact that sometimes you want to add logic to a setter or a getter and if you don't have language level getters/setters you end up having to change the interface of the object from a public property to a getFoo/setFoo pair. This leads to everyone having getFoo/setFoo by default just to avoid interface changes or mixed interfaces of public properties and setFoo.

On 24 Oct 2014, at 10:34, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: As much i really like the idea to have better properties management in PHP I see this RFC as an attempt to solve only part of the problem while dropping most of the other ideas implemented in the past RFCs. My take on that is that some will vote no, or won't like the idea of adding anything in this area. Making compromises and implement partial solutions will only delay the implementation of the complete solution. Many of us agree that __get/__set is a pain to deal with.The need of readonly, writeonly or properties with some logic to define or get a value is a lond due need. Many other languages support that out of the box since long already. Past RFCs, like the c# one, proposed that. I would rather focus on trying to find an acceptable syntax and implementation instead of doing baby steps like that. Baby steps work very well for scalar type hinting, solving one issue after another, etc. But for properties we are at the risk of hainvg a serie of separate RFCs solving the properties management problems in different ways bringing even more troubles and inconsistencies.

I think I might be misunderstood, here. While getters and setters can do this, and I’m very much in favour of also reviving a simplified version of the getter/setter RFC (previous one was way too complex), I don’t see this as partly implementing them/baby steps/etc. I fact, I think readonly properties could work together with getters/setters.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. It also sounds good to have very simple getter/setters when needed and simple properties + eventually readonly otherwise. issetters/unsetters aren't extremely needed. Cheers -- Jordi Boggiano @seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi