On 27/02/2024 17:49, Erick de Azevedo Lima wrote:
> It sounds like most people are just really, really pissed off by an
implicit variable
I think that it could be good to follow the PHP way to mark the
"magic" stuff, which is putting leading underscores on the magic stuff.
I think that might help; I also think that even if the RFC offers a
choice to the list, the final implementation should not offer choice to
users.
I think part of what put people off with the original wording was that
it implied $field was an alias for $this->propertyName, but the alias
was "preferred". The reality is that we have a new thing that we need a
name/syntax for, and $field or $this->propertyName are possible options.
To avoid another lengthy e-mail, I've put together some alternative RFC
wording. The main idea is to switch the framing from "hooks on top of
properties, which may be virtual" to "hooked properties which are
virtual by default, but may access a special backing field".
As noted in the introduction this is *not* intended as a
counter-proposal or critique, just somewhere to collate my thoughts and
suggestions: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks/imsop-suggestion
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
