Re: [RFC Discussion] "var" Deprecation

On 3/14/2016 7:26 PM, James Titcumb wrote: > Yup, agree with this. In my opinion, I'd like to see two birds with one > stone, but a separate RFC is acceptable I suppose. The only risk is one > change getting voted in and not the other, leaving an even worse > inconsistency IMO. I think this RFC should be all or nothing: require > visibility for both methods and properties, or do not require anything. > +1, but ... On 3/14/2016 6:34 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > Besides that, there isn't 2 ways for declaring a property, but (at least) 3: > > #1 > class Example { > var $foo; > } > > #2 > class Example { > public $foo; > } > > #3 > class Example { > public function __construct() { > $this->foo = null; > } > } > > If I understand this RFC, example #1 is handled by it, but not #3. > Using #1 would emit a deprecation notice, but #3 wouldn't? > As far as I am concerned, I think it is still better to declare the > properties rather than not and this RFC would (somehow) favour not > declaring them at all than doing so with "var". > .. #3 is a different language feature of PHP: dynamic assignment of properties to objects. Userland code does not and should not care if the internals code creates these dynamic properties with *var* or *public* or *very-special-internals-visibility-modifier*. ;) -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc