On 02/04/2024 14:14, Derick Rethans wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Bilge wrote:
About the PR: I sometimes find it would be useful to only update part of the
date. The PR makes all parameters to DateTime(Immutable)::setDate
<https://www.php.net/manual/en/datetimeimmutable.setdate.php> optional in a
backwards-compatible manner such that we can elect to update only the day,
month, year or any combination of the three (thanks, in part, to named
parameters). Without this modification, we must always specify all of the day,
month and year parameters to change the date.
As I mentioned to you in Room 11, I am not in favour of adhoc API
changes to Date/Time classes. It has now been nearly 18 years since they
were originally introduced, and they indeed could do with an overhaul.
I have been colllecting ideas in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pxPSRbfATKE4TFWw72K3p7ir-02YQbTf3S3SIxOKWsk/edit#heading=h.2jol7kfhmijb
Having different/better modifiers would also be a good thing to talk
about, albeit perhaps on the four mentioned new classes, instead of
adding them to the already existing DateTime and DateTimeImmutable
classes.
In any case, just allowing setDate to be able to just modify the month
is going to introduce confusion, as this will be counter intuitive:
$dt = new DateTimeImmutable("2024-03-31");
$newDt = $dt->setDate( month: 2 );
It is now representing 2024-03-02.
This might be the right answer, but it might also be that the developer
just cared about the month part (and not the day-of-month), in which
case this is a WTF moment.
Picking mofication APIs is not as trivial as it seems, and I would like
to do it *right*.
Feel free to add comments and wishes to the google doc document. In the
near future, I will be writing up an RFC from this.
cheers,
Derick
Hi Derick,
Thanks for your reply!
Indeed, as per your code snippet, this is a WTF moment I had not
accounted for and confirm the same result with my patch applied.
Generally, my expectation here would be the month *must* be set to 2, so
if the day portion will be invalidated by that change, we should either
throw an exception or implicitly coerce it into range, i.e. (new
DateTime("2024-03-31"))->setDate(month: 2); == 2024-02-29. However, I
suppose this is not the conversation we're having as you do not wish to
change this API at all, which I respect.
Regarding your brainstorm document, I can't understand much of it in its
current state, and as I am not a subject matter expert, I think you will
receive much better feedback from others. In particular, I cannot glean
which four classes you are referring to in that document. Yet what I do
find interesting is the notion of adding setters to DateTimeImmutable.
For my particular use-case—producing a collection of dates incrementing
by year in a Twig template—a trivial year setter would do just fine,
with the significant caveat that it must implement fluent interface,
because I need to call it in an expression context (returning a value),
not a statement context (executing a void function separately). Not that
Twig cannot execute statements, but it just becomes more verbose,
cumbersome and less template-like.
If you were happy for me to add getters and fluent setters for year, I'd
be happy to work on that PR, but for month we're back to the same
problem outlined in the opening paragraph (and I suppose the same
problem occasionally applies to year, if the day happens to be set to
the leap day). Otherwise, I'll be happy to read over your RFC when it's
ready.
Kind regards, Bilge
