Re: [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties

2016-05-26 7:00 GMT+02:00 Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>: > Hi! > > > Also, property access never was safe. Consider: > > > > $obj = new class { > > public $foo; > > function __construct() { > > unset($this->foo); > > } > > function __get($prop) { > > throw new Exception("No $prop for you today!"); > > } > > }; > > var_dump($obj->foo); // exception. > > This is different. Your code throws exception purposefully so you intend > something to break here - you might as well just written exit(1) and > said there's no safe code at all since you could exit at any moment. > That's not what I mean. I mean that operation that was previously not > prone to fatal errors just because of variable holding some value would > now produce such errors - not because the user wrote code to > specifically do that but because of hidden properties of the engine. If > the engine would by itself insert such code as above into user classes > that would be dangerous too but of course it does not. > > > > > isset() checks will continue to work. > > For some definition of "work" - since it would return false for null > values, but null values are actually OK. If there's a function to check it, how would you handle it? It's clearly a programming mistake. > It's just about getting a *value*. (and to check whether it's a typed > property, there's Reflection support in the RFC.) > > You don't propose using Reflection before each variable access I > presume. Reflection is useless in runtime scenario. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com >