Gustavo I've voted "No" due to concerns I mentioned in most part in IRC, but which > I think should be here on the record. So my voting statement: > > I'm voting against this proposal because I think the proposed syntax > strongly suggests that the property is bound to a specific type. This has > several problems: > > * It's a promise that's not guaranteed. As long as the getter is allowed > to reference the value of the variable can arbitrarily be changed to > whatever type. It may also be possible to do the same with unserialization. >
This is pretty easily solved by removing the ability to return a reference from the getter when the shortcut syntax is used. In fact, remove the ability to set the body of a getter at all (it would only allow you to specify the visibility. If you need references, you can't use this syntax... > * The benefits are minimal. The only real benefit is cutting maybe two > lines of code in an indisputably common scenario. > Cutting two lines of code per instance. And considering that this is used all the time, that can add up to some pretty significant (if not trivial) boilerplate that's removed... Anthony
