Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Vincent de Lau wrote:
> From: Rob Landers  
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2024 11:21 AM
>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 23:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
>> > > Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?
>
>> > It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The 
>> > preference was split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So we 
>> > went with that.  I don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the same 
>> > syntax, but we're using the one that was both somewhat more popular, and 
>> > (as discussed in the RFC) arguably superior.
>
>> > As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight change 
>> > to PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  That's the 
>> > nature of the problem space, regardless of the syntax specifics.
>
>> Just to play devil’s advocate, it was also before we had property hooks who 
>> advertised itself as a way to “wrap and guard access to object properties” 
>> but we are simply ignoring their existence here.
>
> I'm very disappointed that this discussion was not concluded before the 
> vote was started. One of the main arguments for picking this syntax is 
> the research from two years ago, when hooks where not a thing. In my 
> opinion that makes that whole research obsolete in this new context. 
> I've asked to redo the research, but that was not acknowledged
>
> For the 'split visibility' concern, there has been some mentioning of 
> reviving the `var` keyword, allowing you to place all visibility in the 
> hook block.
>
> While I don't have the 'perfect' syntax in mind, I strongly believe 
> that this subject required a bit more investigation and discussion. My 
> only hope now is that the people voting take this into consideration, 
> especially as this is now being rushed into 8.4.

While hooks were not a feature when Aviz was first proposed, it was very clear 
at the time that they were coming, and the syntax was mostly already figured 
out, at least in broad strokes.  It's not like no one knew we'd be having {} 
after the property if hooks pass.  I would not call the results obsolete.  
Rather, I think what it shows is that there's no syntax that will satisfy 
everyone, so trying to find a syntax favored by everyone would just waste time 
and end in failure anyway.

I would hardly call this rushed; it was open for multiple months, and built on 
the previous discussion in 2023.  Lazy Objects, for instance, was first 
proposed a month after aviz, and started its vote on the same day.  (No shade 
on Lazy Objects; I'm happy to see that passing.)

--Larry Garfield

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Vincent de Lau]

From: Rob Landers  
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2024 11:21 AM

> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 23:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
> > > Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?

> > It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The preference 
> > was split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So we went with 
> > that.  I don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the same syntax, but 
> > we're using the one that was both somewhat more popular, and (as discussed 
> > in the RFC) arguably superior.

> > As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight change 
> > to PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  That's the 
> > nature of the problem space, regardless of the syntax specifics.

> Just to play devil’s advocate, it was also before we had property hooks who 
> advertised itself as a way to “wrap and guard access to object properties” 
> but we are simply ignoring their existence here.

I'm very disappointed that this discussion was not concluded before the vote 
was started. One of the main arguments for picking this syntax is the research 
from two years ago, when hooks where not a thing. In my opinion that makes that 
whole research obsolete in this new context. I've asked to redo the research, 
but that was not acknowledged

For the 'split visibility' concern, there has been some mentioning of reviving 
the `var` keyword, allowing you to place all visibility in the hook block.

While I don't have the 'perfect' syntax in mind, I strongly believe that this 
subject required a bit more investigation and discussion. My only hope now is 
that the people voting take this into consideration, especially as this is now 
being rushed into 8.4.

--
Vincent de Lau

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024, at 16:27, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024, at 12:58 PM, Rob Landers wrote:
> 
> >> And now that I see it spelled out more, I do agree that while it appears a 
> >> bit more verbose, and this "(set)" looks odd at first, having all the 
> >> visibility upfront is a lot clearer than having to read through the hooks 
> >> to see what visibility applies.
> >
> > On a large property hook that potentially span hundreds of lines, I'd 
> > rather only need to scroll up to the "set =>" to see how it is set vs. 
> > going all the way back up to the property itself.
> 
> If someone has a property hook that is hundreds of lines long, their code is 
> already crap and there's no hope for them.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 

True, but we don't always get to choose what code we work on.

— Rob

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024, at 12:58 PM, Rob Landers wrote:

>> And now that I see it spelled out more, I do agree that while it appears a 
>> bit more verbose, and this "(set)" looks odd at first, having all the 
>> visibility upfront is a lot clearer than having to read through the hooks to 
>> see what visibility applies.
>
> On a large property hook that potentially span hundreds of lines, I'd 
> rather only need to scroll up to the "set =>" to see how it is set vs. 
> going all the way back up to the property itself.

If someone has a property hook that is hundreds of lines long, their code is 
already crap and there's no hope for them.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024, at 13:36, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On 21.07.2024 11:21, Rob Landers wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 23:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
>>> > Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?
>>> 
>>> It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The preference 
>>> was split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So we went with 
>>> that.  I don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the same syntax, but 
>>> we're using the one that was both somewhat more popular, and (as discussed 
>>> in the RFC) arguably superior.
>>> 
>>> As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight change 
>>> to PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  That's the 
>>> nature of the problem space, regardless of the syntax specifics.
>>> 
>>> --Larry Garfield
>>> 
>> 
>> Just to play devil’s advocate, it was also before we had property hooks who 
>> advertised itself as a way to “wrap and guard access to object properties” 
>> but we are simply ignoring their existence here.
>> 
> Just to compare them, because my initial gut feel was to say "yes please just 
> put this together with hooks"..
> 
> As far as I understand these would be the two options?
> 
>  class C {
>  public protected(set) $answer { get => 42; set => { $this->answer = 
> $value * 2; }
>  public private(set) $publicReadOnly;
>  }
> 
> 
>  class C {
>  public $answer { get => 42; protected set => { $this->answer = 
> $value * 2; }
>  public $publicReadOnly { private set; }
>  }
> 
> And now that I see it spelled out more, I do agree that while it appears a 
> bit more verbose, and this "(set)" looks odd at first, having all the 
> visibility upfront is a lot clearer than having to read through the hooks to 
> see what visibility applies.

On a large property hook that potentially span hundreds of lines, I'd rather 
only need to scroll up to the "set =>" to see how it is set vs. going all the 
way back up to the property itself.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 21.07.2024 11:21, Rob Landers wrote:


On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 23:51, Larry Garfield wrote:

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
> Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?

It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The 
preference was split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So 
we went with that.  I don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the 
same syntax, but we're using the one that was both somewhat more 
popular, and (as discussed in the RFC) arguably superior.


As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight 
change to PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  
That's the nature of the problem space, regardless of the syntax 
specifics.


--Larry Garfield



Just to play devil’s advocate, it was also before we had property 
hooks who advertised itself as a way to “wrap and guard access to 
object properties” but we are simply ignoring their existence here.


Just to compare them, because my initial gut feel was to say "yes please 
just put this together with hooks"..


As far as I understand these would be the two options?

 class C {
 public protected(set) $answer { get => 42; set => { $this->answer = 
$value * 2; }
 public private(set) $publicReadOnly;
 }


 class C {
 public $answer { get => 42; protected set => { $this->answer = $value 
* 2; }
 public $publicReadOnly { private set; }
 }

And now that I see it spelled out more, I do agree that while it appears a bit more 
verbose, and this "(set)" looks odd at first, having all the visibility upfront 
is a lot clearer than having to read through the hooks to see what visibility applies.

Best,
Jordi

--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek -https://seld.be

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, at 7:07 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 7/20/24 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.
>
> I've went through the RFC once more. I have the following remarks:
>
>> For that reason, a private(set) property is automatically final and may not 
>> be redeclared at all.
>> 
>
> I assume that explicitly marking it as final is still allowed (just 
> redundant)?

Correct.  I have added a comment to that effect.

>> There is one caveat regarding virtual properties that have no set operation. 
>> If there is no set operation defined on a property, then it is nonsensical 
>> to specify a visibility for it. That case will trigger a compile error. For 
>> example:
>> 
>
> How does this interact with inheritance? Consider the following example:
>
>  class P {
>  public $answer { get => 42; }
>  }
>
>  class C extends P {
>  public protected(set) $answer { get => 42; set => 'dummy'; }
>  }
>
> This could be considered to be both narrowing the `set` visibility from 
> `public` to `protected` (which is unsound), but also widening it from 
> “never” to `protected` (which would be sound).

I checked with Ilija, and confirmed that it's the second.  I have updated the 
RFC accordingly to make that explicit.

>> as it's possible now for a property to be visible but not writeable. For the 
>> time being,
>
> I dislike the “for the time being” phrasing, because changing that would 
> effectively result in a breaking change, because the __set() may be 
> called in situations that were not anticipated. I would have preferred a 
> stronger phrasing that makes it clear that the RFC authors know what 
> they are talking about.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus

I wordsmithed this a bit further.  We're not trying to be wishy-washy.  Rather, 
there are a couple of knock-on implications that are worth discussing that we 
consider off topic, but the approach we're taking does not preclude them.  
We're deliberately taking the conservative approach.  Adding a __set fallback 
in the future would not be a BC break, as it would be changing a hard error 
condition to a legal condition, which is something nearly all new features do.  
We don't think it's wise to do that, but if someone wanted to advocate for that 
in the future we're not precluding it.  If none of those further discussions 
happen, we still consider this behavior complete and acceptable.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 7/20/24 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:

Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.


I've went through the RFC once more. I have the following remarks:


For that reason, a private(set) property is automatically final and may not be 
redeclared at all.



I assume that explicitly marking it as final is still allowed (just 
redundant)?



There is one caveat regarding virtual properties that have no set operation. If 
there is no set operation defined on a property, then it is nonsensical to 
specify a visibility for it. That case will trigger a compile error. For 
example:



How does this interact with inheritance? Consider the following example:

class P {
public $answer { get => 42; }
}

class C extends P {
public protected(set) $answer { get => 42; set => 'dummy'; }
}

This could be considered to be both narrowing the `set` visibility from 
`public` to `protected` (which is unsound), but also widening it from 
“never” to `protected` (which would be sound).



as it's possible now for a property to be visible but not writeable. For the 
time being,


I dislike the “for the time being” phrasing, because changing that would 
effectively result in a breaking change, because the __set() may be 
called in situations that were not anticipated. I would have preferred a 
stronger phrasing that makes it clear that the RFC authors know what 
they are talking about.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 7/20/24 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija 
>> realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for 
>> aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not 
>> less.  For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a 
>> non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in 
>> the RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavior now have 
>> better alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So 
>> there's really no point to falling back to __set in edge cases.
>> 
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset
>> 
>> Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.
>
> I find it unfortunate that this RFC received a non-trivial change on a 
> Saturday after the discussion has been idle for more than a month 
> together with the announcement that the vote will begin shortly after 
> the weekend. Folks should be given sufficient time to react to the 
> newest developments. Personally I plan to give this RFC another read, 
> because I already forgot the details after a month of not looking at it, 
> but I'm not sure if I'll manage today.
>
> For now:
>
> Is there any implementation of this RFC? The RFC text only references 
> the https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/9257 PR hasn't been updated 
> since December 2022.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus

Oof, sorry, I thought Ilija had updated the link already.  It is now updated, 
and the PR is here:

https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15063

Since the PR wasn't easily available until now, we're going to push the vote 
start back to this coming Friday.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 7/20/24 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:

We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija realized 
that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for aviz 
properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not less.  
For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a non-readonly aviz 
property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in the RFC, but in short, 
all of the use cases for that behavior now have better alternatives, such as 
property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So there's really no point to falling 
back to __set in edge cases.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset

Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.


I find it unfortunate that this RFC received a non-trivial change on a 
Saturday after the discussion has been idle for more than a month 
together with the announcement that the vote will begin shortly after 
the weekend. Folks should be given sufficient time to react to the 
newest developments. Personally I plan to give this RFC another read, 
because I already forgot the details after a month of not looking at it, 
but I'm not sure if I'll manage today.


For now:

Is there any implementation of this RFC? The RFC text only references 
the https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/9257 PR hasn't been updated 
since December 2022.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 23:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
> > Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?
> 
> It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The preference 
> was split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So we went with that.  
> I don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the same syntax, but we're 
> using the one that was both somewhat more popular, and (as discussed in the 
> RFC) arguably superior.
> 
> As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight change to 
> PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  That's the nature 
> of the problem space, regardless of the syntax specifics.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 

Just to play devil’s advocate, it was also before we had property hooks who 
advertised itself as a way to “wrap and guard access to object properties” but 
we are simply ignoring their existence here.

— Rob

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
> Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?

It was, a year and a half ago when Aviz was first proposed.  The preference was 
split, but leaned toward the prefix-style syntax.  So we went with that.  I 
don't think we'll ever get everyone to want the same syntax, but we're using 
the one that was both somewhat more popular, and (as discussed in the RFC) 
arguably superior.

As the "comments in yield from" thread has shown, *any* even slight change to 
PHP's syntax will require work from static analysis tools.  That's the nature 
of the problem space, regardless of the syntax specifics.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 10:47 AM, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Hi Rob
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 3:47 PM Rob Landers  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> >
>> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>>
>> Hi folks.  After a side quest to polish off hooks, we're nearly ready to 
>> bring aviz to a vote.
>>
>> We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija 
>> realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for 
>> aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not 
>> less.  For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a 
>> non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in 
>> the RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavior now have 
>> better alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So 
>> there's really no point to falling back to __set in edge cases.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset

>> This is a pretty massive breaking change.
>
> There was a miscommunication between Larry and me. The change is not
> to any existing behavior. __get/__set are currently called under two
> circumstances:
>
> * The properties _full_ visibility is not met.
> * The property was explicitly unset.
>
> We're not changing this behavior. Instead, we decided not calling
> __set for asymmetric visibility, when only the set visibility isn't
> met. Before making this decision, implicitly implying protected(set)
> for a readonly property would have led to __set being called (because
> the scope protection now comes from asymmetric visibility, rather than
> readonly itself), which would have been a change to the current
> behavior.
>
> So, in short: If only the set visibility isn't met, we're now throwing
> an error. This is consistent with readonly today, and with get-only
> hooks. If somebody wants to change this in the future, they can do so
> without any BC breaks, and most likely should make the behavior
> consistent across all of these three cases.
>
> Ilija

After discussing with Ilija further, I've rewritten the __set section (again).  
As Ilija said, the long and short of it is "we change nothing", but leave the 
door open to clean up __set's behavior in the future, once we decide what 
cleanup is warranted.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Ilija Tovilo]

Hi Rob

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 3:47 PM Rob Landers  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>
> Hi folks.  After a side quest to polish off hooks, we're nearly ready to 
> bring aviz to a vote.
>
> We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija 
> realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for 
> aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not 
> less.  For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a 
> non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in 
> the RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavior now have better 
> alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So there's 
> really no point to falling back to __set in edge cases.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset
>
> Hmm,
>
> There’s a lot of existing code that relies on this behavior, it’s pretty much 
> the best way to create proxies without requiring code generation.
>
> This is a pretty massive breaking change.

There was a miscommunication between Larry and me. The change is not
to any existing behavior. __get/__set are currently called under two
circumstances:

* The properties _full_ visibility is not met.
* The property was explicitly unset.

We're not changing this behavior. Instead, we decided not calling
__set for asymmetric visibility, when only the set visibility isn't
met. Before making this decision, implicitly implying protected(set)
for a readonly property would have led to __set being called (because
the scope protection now comes from asymmetric visibility, rather than
readonly itself), which would have been a change to the current
behavior.

So, in short: If only the set visibility isn't met, we're now throwing
an error. This is consistent with readonly today, and with get-only
hooks. If somebody wants to change this in the future, they can do so
without any BC breaks, and most likely should make the behavior
consistent across all of these three cases.

Ilija

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 03:14, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric 
> > visibility.  
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
> >
> > It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few 
> > adjustments and changes:
> >
> > * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
> > * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something 
> > else set is the most common use case.
> > * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The 
> > implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less 
> > confusing now.
> > * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) 
> > and with interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist 
> > at the time of the last draft.
> > * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete 
> > improvement, even in a world with readonly and hooks.
> > * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was 
> > chosen.
> 
> Hi folks.  After a side quest to polish off hooks, we're nearly ready to 
> bring aviz to a vote.
> 
> We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija 
> realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for 
> aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not 
> less.  For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a 
> non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in 
> the RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavior now have better 
> alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So there's 
> really no point to falling back to __set in edge cases.
> 
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset
> 
> Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 

Hmm,

There’s a lot of existing code that relies on this behavior, it’s pretty much 
the best way to create proxies without requiring code generation.

This is a pretty massive breaking change. 

— Rob

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rodrigo Vieira]

Will the alternative syntax on hook not even be put to a vote?

I think the "prefix-style" syntax breaks the standard property signature 
template that exists since PHP 5!

Natural syntax:

  $;

With prefix-style:

 (set)  $;

This introduces a syntax that is totally unexpected to natural reading. In my 
opinion, pretty ugly.

What about some static code analysis tools? What about using regex to parse 
code and syntax in PHP (which takes a lot of work to build) for extensions used 
in IDEs like VSCode, IntelliJ, etc.?
To parse Property Hooks, a lot of time and work will already be spent adapting 
to the new syntax, and now this as well? Why not take advantage of the new 
Property Hooks syntax newly implemented?

Implementing visibility in the hook, which can be now the default API of the 
properties, would further enhance the syntax of Property Hooks, which in my 
opinion is one of the best features of PHP in the past five years.

If more operations on Hooks are implemented in the future, what is the use of 
this syntax? How could it be used? For example, an operation that is called 
only when a property is first set: `init` hook.

public $prop {
   private init => //...set a default initial value here
}

A hook called 'push' only for arrays, would solve some semantic problems and 
make it clear to separate the set operation (set values of an array) vs push 
only one item to the array as I showed in the example above.

What about other operations that are already common when we use magical methods 
in the future: unset, isset, etc.?
In the Property Hooks RFC, it was mentioned that more hooks may be added in the 
future.

It may be a default behavior for developers to want to override all magic 
methods for properties using Property Hooks. For now there is only get and set, 
but what about unset, isset, etc? How is it to define the visibility for this 
in the future?

public private(set, unset)
??
Where would new operations beyond the `set` will enter this syntax?

Cheers,
Rodrigo Vieira
Em Jul 19, 2024, 10:18 PM -0300, Larry Garfield  
escreveu:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric 
> > visibility.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
> >
> > It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few
> > adjustments and changes:
> >
> > * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
> > * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something
> > else set is the most common use case.
> > * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified. The
> > implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less
> > confusing now.
> > * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really)
> > and with interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist
> > at the time of the last draft.
> > * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete
> > improvement, even in a world with readonly and hooks.
> > * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was
> > chosen.
>
> Hi folks. After a side quest to polish off hooks, we're nearly ready to bring 
> aviz to a vote.
>
> We've made one change since we last discussed it: Specifically, Ilija 
> realized that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for 
> aviz properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not 
> less. For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a 
> non-readonly aviz property will not trigger __set. Further details are in the 
> RFC, but in short, all of the use cases for that behavior now have better 
> alternatives, such as property types, hooks, and aviz itself. So there's 
> really no point to falling back to __set in edge cases.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset
>
> Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric visibility. 
>  
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>
> It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few 
> adjustments and changes:
>
> * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
> * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something 
> else set is the most common use case.
> * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The 
> implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less 
> confusing now.
> * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) 
> and with interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist 
> at the time of the last draft.
> * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete 
> improvement, even in a world with readonly and hooks.
> * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was 
> chosen.

Hi folks.  After a side quest to polish off hooks, we're nearly ready to bring 
aviz to a vote.

We've made one change since we last discussed it:  Specifically, Ilija realized 
that __set's behavior is already inconsistent, so supporting it for aviz 
properties with invisible set would make it even more inconsistent, not less.  
For that reason, we've changed the __set behavior such that a non-readonly aviz 
property will not trigger __set.  Further details are in the RFC, but in short, 
all of the use cases for that behavior now have better alternatives, such as 
property types, hooks, and aviz itself.  So there's really no point to falling 
back to __set in edge cases.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2#interaction_with_set_and_unset

Baring any new developments, we plan to start the vote early next week.

Cheers.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Lanre]

Yeah i know im just one irrelevant person with crazy ideas (stable engine
etc). I never said PHP needs me, I simply decided to no longer be a part of
this shithole. I mean i brought up valid points about the engine, yet here
you are with a retarded cheeky response when you could've just ignored me.

Cheers,
Lanre

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 1:44 AM Lynn  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 3:15 AM Lanre  wrote:
>
>> Why invest time in crafting yet another pull request or RFC when it's
>> glaringly obvious that you guys have no clue what you're doing? First,
>> there's the questionable decision to implement JIT in 8.0, followed by the
>> introduction of an entirely new library (IR) to a language that's
>> predominantly request-based, boasting nothing more than a rudimentary AST,
>> plagued with inconsistencies, clinging to CGI, and practically useless
>> without a framework. And now, after greenlighting a dubious property hooks
>> RFC, the same individuals are embroiled in a debate over Asymmetric
>> Visibility? If you can't think up ways to make the engine "more rubust and
>> sturdy" as a paid member of the foundation then maybe it is also time to
>> start reconsidering my donations.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:42 PM Derick Rethans  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 June 2024 21:17:38 BST, Lanre  wrote:
>>> >You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the
>>> engine
>>> >to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
>>> >adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is
>>> my
>>> >cue to explore other languages for handling requests
>>>
>>>
>>> Please moderate your language.
>>>
>>> Posts like this do nothing except a higher chance for people to ignore
>>> you, when you've actual points to make, such as credible suggestions as to
>>> how to make PHP "more rubust and sturdy".
>>>
>>> Looking forwards to your RFCs and patches.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Derick
>>>
>>
> Sometimes people grow in a different direction than a project and that's
> okay, you should do what you feel is best for you. Even if that means you
> will no longer be enriching us with your presence, I think the PHP project
> will eventually recover from such great loss.
>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 1:48 PM, Rob Landers wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 15:36, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 6:47 AM, Rob Landers wrote:
>> 
>> > I’m also not a fan of the prefix style, but for different reasons. My 
>> > main reason is that it increases the minimum line-length, potentially 
>> > forcing you to chop things down into awkward looking lines:
>> >
>> > public
>> > private(set)
>> > string $longvarname {
>> >  get;
>> >  set;
>> > }
>> >
>> > I find that extremely hard to scan, but maybe others do not. The more 
>> > natural looking syntax is easier to scan and reason about (IMHO):
>> >
>> > public
>> > string $longvarname {
>> >  get;
>> >  private set;
>> > }
>> >
>> > If I’m having to read the code, I prefer to have everything near where 
>> > it is used so I don’t have to scroll up to the top and see its 
>> > visibility. Granted, I haven’t used property hooks and I have no idea 
>> > how IDEs will help here; maybe it is a non-issue — but I guess people 
>> > still have to do code reviews which very rarely comes with IDE powers.
>> >
>> > — Rob
>> 
>> I have never in my life seen someone split the visibility to a separate line 
>> from the type and variable name in PHP.  I don't know why anyone would start 
>> now, especially not because of hooks or aviz.  I just checked and PER-CS 
>> very directly states "All keywords MUST be on a single line, and MUST be 
>> separated by a single space."  So splitting it like shown above would be 
>> against standard coding conventions anyway.
>> 
>> This is really a strawman argument.
>> 
>> --Larry Garfield
>> 
>
> I’m willing to concede that it might be a straw man, though I did not 
> intend it as such. I was being serious in my pointing out of it 
> increasing the minimum line length and PER isn’t the only coding 
> standard. It may result in some ugly code, as in my example.
>
> — Rob

I didn't think it was deliberate.  But in practice:

public string $foo; // 13 chars, excluding variable.
public readonly string $foo; // 21 chars, excluding variable.
private(set) string $foo;// 18 chars, excluding variable.
protected(set) string $foo;   // 19 chars, excluding variable.
public private(set) string $foo  // 24 chars, excluding variable.
public protected(set) readonly string $foo; // 29 chars, excluding variable.

Even in the most pathologically long case, where you include every possible 
modifier, we're up to 29 characters.  Typical coding guidelines say to use 
either 80 or 120 character lines.  So even factoring in indentation, you're 
still going to need a 50+ character variable name before line length becomes an 
issue.  At that point, the issue is your silly variable name, not the modifiers.

The far more common cases would be `private(set) string $foo` and 
`protected(set) string $foo`, both of which are... shorter than `public 
readonly string $foo`, which we already have.

In comparison, using hook-embedded style without hook implementations, we get:

public string $foo { private set; } // 29 characters excluding variable

So the base case with hook-embedded style is about 50% more characters than the 
prefix-style.

The only way that it wouldn't be is to structure it like so:

public string $foo {
  private set;
}

At which point I'd argue that's worse in every regard, especially with how many 
properties are now defined in constructor promotion.  That would be vastly 
uglier in constructor promotion than the inline style, with either syntax.

To whatever extent we care about line length and conciseness, prefix-style wins 
over hook-embedded, unquestionably.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 15:36, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 6:47 AM, Rob Landers wrote:
> 
> > I’m also not a fan of the prefix style, but for different reasons. My 
> > main reason is that it increases the minimum line-length, potentially 
> > forcing you to chop things down into awkward looking lines:
> >
> > public
> > private(set)
> > string $longvarname {
> >  get;
> >  set;
> > }
> >
> > I find that extremely hard to scan, but maybe others do not. The more 
> > natural looking syntax is easier to scan and reason about (IMHO):
> >
> > public
> > string $longvarname {
> >  get;
> >  private set;
> > }
> >
> > If I’m having to read the code, I prefer to have everything near where 
> > it is used so I don’t have to scroll up to the top and see its 
> > visibility. Granted, I haven’t used property hooks and I have no idea 
> > how IDEs will help here; maybe it is a non-issue — but I guess people 
> > still have to do code reviews which very rarely comes with IDE powers.
> >
> > — Rob
> 
> I have never in my life seen someone split the visibility to a separate line 
> from the type and variable name in PHP.  I don't know why anyone would start 
> now, especially not because of hooks or aviz.  I just checked and PER-CS very 
> directly states "All keywords MUST be on a single line, and MUST be separated 
> by a single space."  So splitting it like shown above would be against 
> standard coding conventions anyway.
> 
> This is really a strawman argument.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 

I’m willing to concede that it might be a straw man, though I did not intend it 
as such. I was being serious in my pointing out of it increasing the minimum 
line length and PER isn’t the only coding standard. It may result in some ugly 
code, as in my example.

— Rob

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, at 6:47 AM, Rob Landers wrote:

> I’m also not a fan of the prefix style, but for different reasons. My 
> main reason is that it increases the minimum line-length, potentially 
> forcing you to chop things down into awkward looking lines:
>
> public
> private(set)
> string $longvarname {
>  get;
>  set;
> }
>
> I find that extremely hard to scan, but maybe others do not. The more 
> natural looking syntax is easier to scan and reason about (IMHO):
>
> public
> string $longvarname {
>  get;
>  private set;
> }
>
> If I’m having to read the code, I prefer to have everything near where 
> it is used so I don’t have to scroll up to the top and see its 
> visibility. Granted, I haven’t used property hooks and I have no idea 
> how IDEs will help here; maybe it is a non-issue — but I guess people 
> still have to do code reviews which very rarely comes with IDE powers.
>
> — Rob

I have never in my life seen someone split the visibility to a separate line 
from the type and variable name in PHP.  I don't know why anyone would start 
now, especially not because of hooks or aviz.  I just checked and PER-CS very 
directly states "All keywords MUST be on a single line, and MUST be separated 
by a single space."  So splitting it like shown above would be against standard 
coding conventions anyway.

This is really a strawman argument.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Lynn]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 3:15 AM Lanre  wrote:

> Why invest time in crafting yet another pull request or RFC when it's
> glaringly obvious that you guys have no clue what you're doing? First,
> there's the questionable decision to implement JIT in 8.0, followed by the
> introduction of an entirely new library (IR) to a language that's
> predominantly request-based, boasting nothing more than a rudimentary AST,
> plagued with inconsistencies, clinging to CGI, and practically useless
> without a framework. And now, after greenlighting a dubious property hooks
> RFC, the same individuals are embroiled in a debate over Asymmetric
> Visibility? If you can't think up ways to make the engine "more rubust and
> sturdy" as a paid member of the foundation then maybe it is also time to
> start reconsidering my donations.
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:42 PM Derick Rethans  wrote:
>
>> On 10 June 2024 21:17:38 BST, Lanre  wrote:
>> >You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the engine
>> >to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
>> >adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is
>> my
>> >cue to explore other languages for handling requests
>>
>>
>> Please moderate your language.
>>
>> Posts like this do nothing except a higher chance for people to ignore
>> you, when you've actual points to make, such as credible suggestions as to
>> how to make PHP "more rubust and sturdy".
>>
>> Looking forwards to your RFCs and patches.
>>
>> cheers
>> Derick
>>
>
Sometimes people grow in a different direction than a project and that's
okay, you should do what you feel is best for you. Even if that means you
will no longer be enriching us with your presence, I think the PHP project
will eventually recover from such great loss.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rob Landers]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024, at 19:51, Rodrigo Vieira wrote:
> I didn't like the `Prefix-style` syntax. I prefer the `Hook-embedded-style` 
> syntax. First let's look at the counterpoints of the `Prefix-style` syntax:
> 
> ## 1) "`Prefix-style` is more visually scannable"
> > The set visibility is 10 lines away from the get visibility!
> 
> Solution:
> ```php
> class HookEmbeddedStyle
> {
> public string $phone {
> private set {
> $this->phone = implode('', array_filter(fn($c) => is_numeric($c), 
> explode($value)))
> }
> get {
> if (!$this->phone) {
> return '';
> }
> if ($this->phone[0] === 1) {
> return 'US ' . $this->phone;
> }
> return 'Intl +' . $this->phone;
> }
> }
> }
> ```
> The set visibility is not 10 lines away from the get visibility if you put it 
> at the top. For me this is about code convention, not about syntactic 
> structure:
> only put the hook with explicit visibility at the top, when some of the hooks 
> do not have explicit visibility!
> 
> ## 2) "`Prefix-style` is shorter"
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
> 
> public string $name { private set; }
> ```
> 
> Irrelevant to consider 1-2 characters.
> If you break the lines needed for the hook block, the line (the horizontal 
> size) is smaller when using `Hook-embedded-style` and in my opinion it is 
> more readable because there is less information per line:
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
> 
> public string $name {
>private set;
> }
> ```
> 
> ## 3) "`Prefix-style` doesn't presume a connection with hooks"
> > As noted above in "Interaction with hooks", visibility controls exist 
> > independently of hooks.
> 
> I agree, but with Property Hooks, this should now define the overall 
> visibility only. Like a bigger gate that you open, and there are other doors 
> defining the visibility of the operations get, set (hooks).
> 
> > In fact, as implemented, they don't interact at all. Using hook syntax for 
> > visibility controls is therefore surprising and confusing.
> 
> Why "surprising and confusing"? I see hooks as a different kind of 
> function/method. 
> Property Hooks RFC shouldn't pass without requiring hook parentheses, for any 
> hook when the property is not abstract. The `$value` in the `set` hook seems 
> to come out of nowhere to some people (the exception is for hooks declared on 
> an abstract property which you can define without parameters and thus you are 
> free to define whatever parameters you want on the concrete property).
> 
> When you define a method in PHP, it should be possible to omit the 
> "function", but the parameters should be required because that's the nature 
> of a function/method: to have parameters.
> 
> ## 4) "It's non-obvious in `Hook-embedded-style` what hook behavior should be 
> implied"
> 
> > ...So “arrays with hooks can do less” is already an established fact of the 
> > language. However, if the hook-style syntax is used for visibility:
> 
> ```php
> class A
> {
> public array $arr { protected set; }
> }
>  
> class B extends A
> {
> public function add(int $val)
> {
> // Should this be legal?
> $this->arr[] = $val;
> }
> }
>  
> $b = new B();
>  
> $b->add(5);
> ```
> First of all: non-abstract property hook must have a body.
> Second: when asymmetric visibility is explicit, it means that symmetric 
> visibility is implicit: a declared hook that does not have declared 
> visibility has the same general visibility as the property, in this case: 
> public.
> 
> Third:
> There's another limitation on hooks here that makes things a bit confusing: 
> there's a missing hook for a specific operation because you can clearly 
> separate the `set` from the `push` operation...
> 
> Solution:
> ```php
> abstract class A
> {
> abstract public array $arr {
> push; // Hook available only for "array" type properties only; public 
> visibility
> private set;
> }
> }
> 
> class B extends A
> {
> public array $arr {
> push ($value) { // `public push ...` here is redundant
> // Mandatory to implement logic here.
> }
> private set ($value) {
> // Mandatory to Implement logic here.
> }
> }
> 
> public function __construct ()
> {
> // Legal ✅ (set hook is protected)
> $this->arr = [1]; // call set hook
> }
> public function add(int $value)
> {
> // Legal ✅ (push hook is public)
> $this->arr[] = $value; // call push hook
> }
> }
> 
> $b = new B();
> 
> $b->add(5);
> $b->arr; // Legal ✅ (Inherited from the general visibility that is public) 
> $b->arr = [1, 2, 3]; // Fatal error ❌ - access to set hook is private only
> $b->arr[] = 4; // Legal ✅ - call public push hook
> ```
> 
> My point: `Prefix-style` is not future-proof
> ## 1) The `Prefix-style` is not compatible with new 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Lanre]

Why invest time in crafting yet another pull request or RFC when it's
glaringly obvious that you guys have no clue what you're doing? First,
there's the questionable decision to implement JIT in 8.0, followed by the
introduction of an entirely new library (IR) to a language that's
predominantly request-based, boasting nothing more than a rudimentary AST,
plagued with inconsistencies, clinging to CGI, and practically useless
without a framework. And now, after greenlighting a dubious property hooks
RFC, the same individuals are embroiled in a debate over Asymmetric
Visibility? If you can't think up ways to make the engine "more rubust and
sturdy" as a paid member of the foundation then maybe it is also time to
start reconsidering my donations.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:42 PM Derick Rethans  wrote:

> On 10 June 2024 21:17:38 BST, Lanre  wrote:
> >You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the engine
> >to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
> >adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is my
> >cue to explore other languages for handling requests
>
>
> Please moderate your language.
>
> Posts like this do nothing except a higher chance for people to ignore
> you, when you've actual points to make, such as credible suggestions as to
> how to make PHP "more rubust and sturdy".
>
> Looking forwards to your RFCs and patches.
>
> cheers
> Derick
>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Derick Rethans]

On 10 June 2024 21:17:38 BST, Lanre  wrote:
>You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the engine
>to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
>adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is my
>cue to explore other languages for handling requests


Please moderate your language.

Posts like this do nothing except a higher chance for people to ignore you, 
when you've actual points to make, such as credible suggestions as to how to 
make PHP "more rubust and sturdy".

Looking forwards to your RFCs and patches.

cheers
Derick

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Lanre]

You guys are killing PHP. There is a lot of work to be done on the engine
to modernize it and make it more robust and sturdy. Shit like this just
adds more complexity to PHP in the name of convenience. I think this is my
cue to explore other languages for handling requests

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM Rodrigo Vieira 
wrote:

> I didn't like the `Prefix-style` syntax. I prefer the
> `Hook-embedded-style` syntax. First let's look at the counterpoints of the
> `Prefix-style` syntax:
>
> ## 1) "`Prefix-style` is more visually scannable"
> > The set visibility is 10 lines away from the get visibility!
>
> Solution:
> ```php
> class HookEmbeddedStyle
> {
> public string $phone {
> private set {
> $this->phone = implode('', array_filter(fn($c) =>
> is_numeric($c), explode($value)))
> }
> get {
> if (!$this->phone) {
> return '';
> }
> if ($this->phone[0] === 1) {
> return 'US ' . $this->phone;
> }
> return 'Intl +' . $this->phone;
> }
> }
> }
> ```
> The set visibility is not 10 lines away from the get visibility if you put
> it at the top. For me this is about code convention, not about syntactic
> structure:
> only put the hook with explicit visibility at the top, when some of the
> hooks do not have explicit visibility!
>
> ## 2) "`Prefix-style` is shorter"
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
>
> public string $name { private set; }
> ```
>
> Irrelevant to consider 1-2 characters.
> If you break the lines needed for the hook block, the line (the horizontal
> size) is smaller when using `Hook-embedded-style` and in my opinion it is
> more readable because there is less information per line:
> ```php
> public private(set) string $name;
>
> public string $name {
>private set;
> }
> ```
>
> ## 3) "`Prefix-style` doesn't presume a connection with hooks"
> > As noted above in "Interaction with hooks", visibility controls exist
> independently of hooks.
>
> I agree, but with Property Hooks, this should now define the overall
> visibility only. Like a bigger gate that you open, and there are other
> doors defining the visibility of the operations get, set (hooks).
>
> > In fact, as implemented, they don't interact at all. Using hook syntax
> for visibility controls is therefore surprising and confusing.
>
> Why "surprising and confusing"? I see hooks as a different kind of
> function/method.
> Property Hooks RFC shouldn't pass without requiring hook parentheses, for
> any hook when the property is not abstract. The `$value` in the `set` hook
> seems to come out of nowhere to some people (the exception is for hooks
> declared on an abstract property which you can define without parameters
> and thus you are free to define whatever parameters you want on the
> concrete property).
>
> When you define a method in PHP, it should be possible to omit the
> "function", but the parameters should be required because that's the nature
> of a function/method: to have parameters.
>
> ## 4) "It's non-obvious in `Hook-embedded-style` what hook behavior should
> be implied"
>
> > ...So “arrays with hooks can do less” is already an established fact of
> the language. However, if the hook-style syntax is used for visibility:
>
> ```php
> class A
> {
> public array $arr { protected set; }
> }
>
> class B extends A
> {
> public function add(int $val)
> {
> // Should this be legal?
> $this->arr[] = $val;
> }
> }
>
> $b = new B();
>
> $b->add(5);
> ```
> First of all: non-abstract property hook must have a body.
> Second: when asymmetric visibility is explicit, it means that symmetric
> visibility is implicit: a declared hook that does not have declared
> visibility has the same general visibility as the property, in this case:
> public.
>
> Third:
> There's another limitation on hooks here that makes things a bit
> confusing: there's a missing hook for a specific operation because you can
> clearly separate the `set` from the `push` operation...
>
> Solution:
> ```php
> abstract class A
> {
> abstract public array $arr {
> push; // Hook available only for "array" type properties only;
> public visibility
> private set;
> }
> }
>
> class B extends A
> {
> public array $arr {
> push ($value) { // `public push ...` here is redundant
> // Mandatory to implement logic here.
> }
> private set ($value) {
> // Mandatory to Implement logic here.
> }
> }
>
> public function __construct ()
> {
> // Legal ✅ (set hook is protected)
> $this->arr = [1]; // call set hook
> }
> public function add(int $value)
> {
> // Legal ✅ (push hook is public)
> $this->arr[] = $value; // call push hook
> }
> }
>
> $b = new B();
>
> $b->add(5);
> $b->arr; // Legal ✅ (Inherited from the general visibility that is public)
> $b->arr = [1, 2,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Rodrigo Vieira]

I didn't like the `Prefix-style` syntax. I prefer the `Hook-embedded-style` 
syntax. First let's look at the counterpoints of the `Prefix-style` syntax:

## 1) "`Prefix-style` is more visually scannable"
> The set visibility is 10 lines away from the get visibility!

Solution:
```php
class HookEmbeddedStyle
{
    public string $phone {
        private set {
            $this->phone = implode('', array_filter(fn($c) => is_numeric($c), 
explode($value)))
        }
        get {
            if (!$this->phone) {
                return '';
            }
            if ($this->phone[0] === 1) {
                return 'US ' . $this->phone;
            }
            return 'Intl +' . $this->phone;
        }
    }
}
```
The set visibility is not 10 lines away from the get visibility if you put it 
at the top. For me this is about code convention, not about syntactic structure:
only put the hook with explicit visibility at the top, when some of the hooks 
do not have explicit visibility!

## 2) "`Prefix-style` is shorter"
```php
public private(set) string $name;

public string $name { private set; }
```

Irrelevant to consider 1-2 characters.
If you break the lines needed for the hook block, the line (the horizontal 
size) is smaller when using `Hook-embedded-style` and in my opinion it is more 
readable because there is less information per line:
```php
public private(set) string $name;

public string $name {
   private set;
}
```

## 3) "`Prefix-style` doesn't presume a connection with hooks"
> As noted above in "Interaction with hooks", visibility controls exist 
> independently of hooks.

I agree, but with Property Hooks, this should now define the overall visibility 
only. Like a bigger gate that you open, and there are other doors defining the 
visibility of the operations get, set (hooks).

> In fact, as implemented, they don't interact at all. Using hook syntax for 
> visibility controls is therefore surprising and confusing.

Why "surprising and confusing"? I see hooks as a different kind of 
function/method.
Property Hooks RFC shouldn't pass without requiring hook parentheses, for any 
hook when the property is not abstract. The `$value` in the `set` hook seems to 
come out of nowhere to some people (the exception is for hooks declared on an 
abstract property which you can define without parameters and thus you are free 
to define whatever parameters you want on the concrete property).

When you define a method in PHP, it should be possible to omit the "function", 
but the parameters should be required because that's the nature of a 
function/method: to have parameters.

## 4) "It's non-obvious in `Hook-embedded-style` what hook behavior should be 
implied"

> ...So “arrays with hooks can do less” is already an established fact of the 
> language. However, if the hook-style syntax is used for visibility:

```php
class A
{
    public array $arr { protected set; }
}

class B extends A
{
    public function add(int $val)
    {
        // Should this be legal?
        $this->arr[] = $val;
    }
}

$b = new B();

$b->add(5);
```
First of all: non-abstract property hook must have a body.
Second: when asymmetric visibility is explicit, it means that symmetric 
visibility is implicit: a declared hook that does not have declared visibility 
has the same general visibility as the property, in this case: public.

Third:
There's another limitation on hooks here that makes things a bit confusing: 
there's a missing hook for a specific operation because you can clearly 
separate the `set` from the `push` operation...

Solution:
```php
abstract class A
{
    abstract public array $arr {
        push; // Hook available only for "array" type properties only; public 
visibility
        private set;
    }
}

class B extends A
{
    public array $arr {
        push ($value) { // `public push ...` here is redundant
            // Mandatory to implement logic here.
        }
        private set ($value) {
            // Mandatory to Implement logic here.
        }
    }

    public function __construct ()
    {
        // Legal ✅ (set hook is protected)
        $this->arr = [1]; // call set hook
    }
    public function add(int $value)
    {
        // Legal ✅ (push hook is public)
        $this->arr[] = $value; // call push hook
    }
}

$b = new B();

$b->add(5);
$b->arr; // Legal ✅ (Inherited from the general visibility that is public)
$b->arr = [1, 2, 3]; // Fatal error ❌ - access to set hook is private only
$b->arr[] = 4; // Legal ✅ - call public push hook
```

My point: `Prefix-style` is not future-proof
## 1) The `Prefix-style` is not compatible with new hooks
If more hooks are added in the future, such as the `push` hook for arrays or 
even a hook that is compatible with all types such as `init`, 
`Hook-embedded-style` will become compatible, but `Prefix-style` not.

## 2) Hook overloading
If hook overloading is added in the future, `Prefix-style` would not be 
supported to have this granular visibility into operation

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tiffany]

On Wed, May 29, 2024, 2:16 PM Larry Garfield  wrote:

> As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric
> visibility.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>
> It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few
> adjustments and changes:
>
> * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
> * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else
> set is the most common use case.
> * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The
> implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less
> confusing now.
> * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) and
> with interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist at the
> time of the last draft.
> * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete
> improvement, even in a world with readonly and hooks.
> * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was chosen.
>
> *dons flame retardant suit*
>
> --
>   Larry Garfield
>   la...@garfieldtech.com


Sending an email to quickly enable a new mailing list subscriber to engage
in the conversation.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024, at 3:49 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 17:30, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, at 7:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:59, Claude Pache  wrote:
>> > *snip*
>> > Hello everyone,
>> > I've been seeing readonly bashed/blamed/being roadblock, etc, etc as in 
>> > the implementation ended up being sloppy and blocking other things or 
>> > making things hard... 
>> > While I know BC is king and stuff, why not just say "yes, this was 
>> > designed badly and we will redo it" and just do it? While there's not 
>> > yet an absolute boatload of that code out there when it would be 
>> > absolutely massive BC break? Don't repeat the mistakes of the old days 
>> > :D
>> 
>> Well, readonly has been out for 3 years.  There is an absolute boatload of 
>> code out there that we do not want to break. :-)
>> 
>> > Cause the impression I'm getting any significant RFC now has to work 
>> > around the readonly's sloppy implementation and there's a bigger and 
>> > bigger section on that with each next RFC when there's more and more 
>> > advanced features for the OOP part of things.
>> 
>> It's not a sloppy implementation per se.  (I can't actually speak to the 
>> implementation myself.)  It's the design of an implicit private(set) that 
>> works differently from any other private variable.  The issue with "thou 
>> shalt not touch it outside of the constructor" isn't a language bug, it's a 
>> static-analyzer bug that those projects refuse to fix.  Not something we can 
>> really do much about here.  Uninitialized wasn't introduced by readonly but 
>> by property types in 7.4; readonly just inherited it.  For hooks, the issue 
>> is that readonly needs a value to check to see if it's uninitialized, and 
>> with hooks, you don't always have that.
>> 
>> I think at this point, the change discussed above (making it implicit 
>> protected(set)) is the best we could do.  In an ideal world, we would have 
>> never added readonly in the first place and just added aviz back in 8.1, 
>> which would cover nearly all the same use cases with fewer edge cases and 
>> oddities.  Sadly, the world is not ideal.
>> 
>> --Larry Garfield
>
> It does depend on what the fix is - if we are talking removing readonly 
> keyword - that's a yikes and if we go that route, it needs to have an 
> official rector migration thing and it better be officially endorsed 
> and provided :)
> If we are talking about tweaking how readonly works in some cases - 
> while not great, I hold the opinion that it's better to fix it now than 
> 20 years down the line.
>
> I do have to say that I do not see a "==" between aviz and readonly. 
> While I can see how you can implement readonly with aviz, the 
> boilerplate seems not worth it, especially for bigger 
> classes/structures where you just designate the whole class with one 
> "readonly class MyClass { ... }". And constructor promotion with 
> "private readonly Class $class" with DI is basically all my services 
> now - it's convenient and short and I really do not need any more than 
> that from the readonly :) Maybe simplifying readonly is the answer and 
> use aviz for more complicated cases?

That is essentially what we've ended up on.  For *services*, aviz is probably 
not super useful; for that matter readonly is only marginally useful in 
services, but a lot of people (myself included) use it as a matter of course 
anyway.  The only change we're discussing there is that "public readonly" or 
"protected readonly" will now be implicitly "protected(set)" instead of 
implicitly "private(set)".  If you're already using "private readonly", then 
that will actually get a bit stricter as it removes the loophole that exists 
only for readonly.  So this is a very small, focused change.

Aviz is much more useful for data classes: value objects, DTOs, domain models, 
ORM models, and so on.  For that, readonly serves one narrow use case and does 
it well, but falls apart and often gets in the way for anything even slightly 
more complex/interesting.  For that, aviz offers vastly more flexibility and 
robustness in about the same amount of syntax.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Arvids Godjuks]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 17:30, Larry Garfield  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, at 7:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:59, Claude Pache 
> wrote:
> > *snip*
> > Hello everyone,
> > I've been seeing readonly bashed/blamed/being roadblock, etc, etc as in
> > the implementation ended up being sloppy and blocking other things or
> > making things hard...
> > While I know BC is king and stuff, why not just say "yes, this was
> > designed badly and we will redo it" and just do it? While there's not
> > yet an absolute boatload of that code out there when it would be
> > absolutely massive BC break? Don't repeat the mistakes of the old days
> > :D
>
> Well, readonly has been out for 3 years.  There is an absolute boatload of
> code out there that we do not want to break. :-)
>
> > Cause the impression I'm getting any significant RFC now has to work
> > around the readonly's sloppy implementation and there's a bigger and
> > bigger section on that with each next RFC when there's more and more
> > advanced features for the OOP part of things.
>
> It's not a sloppy implementation per se.  (I can't actually speak to the
> implementation myself.)  It's the design of an implicit private(set) that
> works differently from any other private variable.  The issue with "thou
> shalt not touch it outside of the constructor" isn't a language bug, it's a
> static-analyzer bug that those projects refuse to fix.  Not something we
> can really do much about here.  Uninitialized wasn't introduced by readonly
> but by property types in 7.4; readonly just inherited it.  For hooks, the
> issue is that readonly needs a value to check to see if it's uninitialized,
> and with hooks, you don't always have that.
>
> I think at this point, the change discussed above (making it implicit
> protected(set)) is the best we could do.  In an ideal world, we would have
> never added readonly in the first place and just added aviz back in 8.1,
> which would cover nearly all the same use cases with fewer edge cases and
> oddities.  Sadly, the world is not ideal.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>

It does depend on what the fix is - if we are talking removing readonly
keyword - that's a yikes and if we go that route, it needs to have an
official rector migration thing and it better be officially endorsed and
provided :)
If we are talking about tweaking how readonly works in some cases - while
not great, I hold the opinion that it's better to fix it now than 20 years
down the line.

I do have to say that I do not see a "==" between aviz and readonly. While
I can see how you can implement readonly with aviz, the boilerplate seems
not worth it, especially for bigger classes/structures where you just
designate the whole class with one "readonly class MyClass { ... }". And
constructor promotion with "private readonly Class $class" with DI is
basically all my services now - it's convenient and short and I really do
not need any more than that from the readonly :) Maybe simplifying readonly
is the answer and use aviz for more complicated cases?
-- 

Arvīds Godjuks
+371 26 851 664
arvids.godj...@gmail.com
Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024, at 7:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:59, Claude Pache  wrote:
>> *snip*
>> Hi Larry and Ilija,
>> 
>> Thanks for your work. Here is my opinion:
>> 
>> First, I do think that `readonly` should integrate with aviz, unless that 
>> implies truly controversial changes on `readonly`. As Theodore Brown 
>> commented in the previous version of the RFC: “Proposal feels unfinished 
>> since it can't be used in conjunction with readonly properties/classes. In 
>> my opinion the issues with this need to be resolved first, to avoid the 
>> language moving towards a messy hodgepodge of features that don't work well 
>> together.”
>> 
>> Second, I think that making `readonly` implicitly `protected(set)` by 
>> default (Option 2) is the way to go:
>> * At first glance it is an expectation change. But, in reality, all readonly 
>> properties can *already* be written to from a child class as of today: it 
>> suffices that the child class in question redeclare those properties: 
>> https://3v4l.org/9AV4r. From the point of view of the child class, the only 
>> thing that will change, is that it will no longer be required to explicitly 
>> opt into that possibility by redeclaring the readonly properties. From the 
>> point of view of the parent class, nothing will change, except false 
>> expectations—and it is a good thing that false expectations are eliminated.
>> * Relatively of Options 3 and 4, Option 2 leaves the language in a more 
>> simple and regular state.

That's a valid point, actually.  The implicit "private(set)" is already untrue 
because of readonly-specific workarounds to enable redeclaration.  Switching it 
to implicit "protected(set)" would remove that special case, and still allow an 
explicit private(set) if desired (which would then imply final).

Since no one else has weighed in, we'll go with that route: readonly on its own 
changes to implicit protected(set), remove any special casing, and then 
readonly and aviz should be safely compatible.  I'll update the RFC and Ilija 
will confirm that there's no implementation gotchas we're not aware of yet.

> Hello everyone,
> I've been seeing readonly bashed/blamed/being roadblock, etc, etc as in 
> the implementation ended up being sloppy and blocking other things or 
> making things hard... 
> While I know BC is king and stuff, why not just say "yes, this was 
> designed badly and we will redo it" and just do it? While there's not 
> yet an absolute boatload of that code out there when it would be 
> absolutely massive BC break? Don't repeat the mistakes of the old days 
> :D

Well, readonly has been out for 3 years.  There is an absolute boatload of code 
out there that we do not want to break. :-)

> Cause the impression I'm getting any significant RFC now has to work 
> around the readonly's sloppy implementation and there's a bigger and 
> bigger section on that with each next RFC when there's more and more 
> advanced features for the OOP part of things.

It's not a sloppy implementation per se.  (I can't actually speak to the 
implementation myself.)  It's the design of an implicit private(set) that works 
differently from any other private variable.  The issue with "thou shalt not 
touch it outside of the constructor" isn't a language bug, it's a 
static-analyzer bug that those projects refuse to fix.  Not something we can 
really do much about here.  Uninitialized wasn't introduced by readonly but by 
property types in 7.4; readonly just inherited it.  For hooks, the issue is 
that readonly needs a value to check to see if it's uninitialized, and with 
hooks, you don't always have that.

I think at this point, the change discussed above (making it implicit 
protected(set)) is the best we could do.  In an ideal world, we would have 
never added readonly in the first place and just added aviz back in 8.1, which 
would cover nearly all the same use cases with fewer edge cases and oddities.  
Sadly, the world is not ideal.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Ilija Tovilo]

Hi Tim

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 7:54 PM Tim Düsterhus  wrote:
>
> One thing that would get pretty wonky would be private-read properties:
> Private property names are currently internally "mangled" to include the
> class name. This allows to define the same private property in multiple
> classes of an inheritance chain, without those classes needing to know
> about the private properties of each other and making the addition and
> removal of a private property not a BC break. For all intents and
> purposes those private properties to not exist, unless you are the class
> itself.
>
> I have no idea what the semantics of a public-write, private-read
> property should be - and this problem is pretty similar to the
> sibling-discussion about making private-set properties implicitly final,
> because otherwise the semantics get wonky.
>
> I believe that the case of making a property public-write, private-read
> is best left to a virtual set-only hook.

Indeed. A private property with a more permissible set operation is
the wrong approach. What we'd want here is a public property with a
restricted get operation. This is not quite expressible with the
current syntax. We'd need something like `public private(get)`, or
`public $prop { private get; }` with the C# equivalent. However, this
is quite an edge case, and since it requires additional syntax I don't
think it's something we should support without a specific use-case.
You can emulate it with a set-only virtual property, if you really
want to.

Ilija

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Arvids Godjuks]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:59, Claude Pache  wrote:

> *snip*
> Hi Larry and Ilija,
>
> Thanks for your work. Here is my opinion:
>
> First, I do think that `readonly` should integrate with aviz, unless that
> implies truly controversial changes on `readonly`. As Theodore Brown
> commented in the previous version of the RFC: “Proposal feels unfinished
> since it can't be used in conjunction with readonly properties/classes. In
> my opinion the issues with this need to be resolved first, to avoid the
> language moving towards a messy hodgepodge of features that don't work well
> together.”
>
> Second, I think that making `readonly` implicitly `protected(set)` by
> default (Option 2) is the way to go:
> * At first glance it is an expectation change. But, in reality, all
> readonly properties can *already* be written to from a child class as of
> today: it suffices that the child class in question redeclare those
> properties: https://3v4l.org/9AV4r. From the point of view of the child
> class, the only thing that will change, is that it will no longer be
> required to explicitly opt into that possibility by redeclaring the
> readonly properties. From the point of view of the parent class, nothing
> will change, except false expectations—and it is a good thing that false
> expectations are eliminated.
> * Relatively of Options 3 and 4, Option 2 leaves the language in a more
> simple and regular state.
>
> —Claude
>
>
>
Hello everyone,
I've been seeing readonly bashed/blamed/being roadblock, etc, etc as in the
implementation ended up being sloppy and blocking other things or making
things hard...
While I know BC is king and stuff, why not just say "yes, this was designed
badly and we will redo it" and just do it? While there's not yet an
absolute boatload of that code out there when it would be absolutely
massive BC break? Don't repeat the mistakes of the old days :D

Cause the impression I'm getting any significant RFC now has to work around
the readonly's sloppy implementation and there's a bigger and bigger
section on that with each next RFC when there's more and more advanced
features for the OOP part of things.

-- 

Arvīds Godjuks
+371 26 851 664
arvids.godj...@gmail.com
Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Claude Pache]

> Le 5 juin 2024 à 16:28, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 8:59 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 5:45 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
 Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
 
 However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly 
 properties (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the 
 property scope (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check 
 pass. That is, the definition of the class it is private to changes, which 
 is different from how inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes 
 to the same property, a special check is needed to verify the two 
 properties are related.  All that special casing effectively means that 
 readonly in 8.4 wouldn't really be "write once + private(set)", but "write 
 once + private(set) - final", which is... just kinda screwy.  That means 
 our options are:
 
 * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
 * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
 * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.
>>> 
>>> Another possible option is:
>>> 
>>> * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.
>>> 
>>> That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in 
>>> a compatible and acceptable way?
>>> 
>>> —Claude
>> 
>> Only sort of compatible.  It would allow readonly props to be 
>> redefined, and wouldn't break any existing code, I think... but it 
>> would mean any time you use readonly, suddenly a child class can come 
>> along and mess with it out from under you.
>> 
>> In practice that's likely not a common concern, but it is a behavior 
>> change.  I think it's possible (I need to confirm with Ilija), if we 
>> want that slight BC break, but I don't know if we do.
>> 
>> --Larry Garfield
> 
> Ilija and I have been discussing this issue over the last few days.  We agree 
> that `private(set)` should imply `final`, as that eliminates a bunch of 
> issues both implementation-wise and expectation-wise.  However, that causes 
> an issue for `readonly`.  
> 
> The root issue is that if we say "`readonly int $x` is really just 
> `private(set) readonly int $x`", that runs into the issue of "whelp, you've 
> just made readonly always final, which is a BC break."  So that's no good.
> 
> We see a couple of ways to resolve this, presented below in our order of 
> preference.
> 
> 1. Disallow readonly with aviz => No BC break, and we don't need to define 
> readonly in terms of private(set).  The only really useful combination anyway 
> would be `readonly protected(set)`, in which case the protected(set) is doing 
> 90% of the work already.  There's few cases where the readonly is truly 
> necessary at that point.  Any other oddball edge cases could be handled by a 
> custom hook.
> 2. Make `readonly` implicitly `protected(set)` unless you explicitly specify 
> `private(set)` => Would have the most consistent result, and this is probably 
> the cleanest in the engine, as `readonly private(set)` would mean exactly 
> what it says on the tin, with no inconsistency of "well it's kinda sorta 
> `private(set)`" as `readonly` has now.  However, this would be an expectation 
> change, as suddenly all readonly properties could be written to from a child 
> class.  That may be good in some cases but it's possible some objects could 
> have unexpected behavior if they didn't expect to be extended.  (No existing 
> code will break, but you could now do things to it in a child class that the 
> author didn't anticipate.)
> 3. You can't mix `readonly` with `private(set)`, but can use other 
> visibilities => No BC break, and we don't need to define readonly in terms of 
> `private(set)`.  However, it means the implicit `private(set)` of `readonly` 
> and an explicit private(set) behave differently (one is final, one is not).  
> It also unclear if a `readonly` property can be overridden with `readonly 
> protected(set)` only, or also `readonly private(set)`.  If the latter, does 
> it become implicitly `final` at that point?
> 4. `readonly` behaves differently for an explicit (final) and implicit 
> (not-final) `private(set)` => No BC break, but it's kinda weird and 
> non-obvious to explain.  It also has the same non-obvious inheritance 
> questions as option 3.
> 
> We consider only the first two to be really viable.  For simplicity, we'd 
> favor doing option 1, and if desired option 2 could be presented in the 
> future as its own RFC as that is technically a behavior change, not just 
> addition, so deserves careful consideration.  However, if there is a clear 
> consensus to go with option 2 now, we're open to that.
> 
> --Larry Garfield

Hi Larry and Ilija,

Thanks for your work. Here is my opinion:

First, I do think that `readonly` should integrate with aviz, unless that 
implies truly controversial changes on `readonly`. As Theodore Brown commented 
in the previous version of the RF

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 8:59 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 5:45 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>>> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>>> 
>>> However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties 
>>> (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope 
>>> (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, 
>>> the definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different 
>>> from how inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same 
>>> property, a special check is needed to verify the two properties are 
>>> related.  All that special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 
>>> wouldn't really be "write once + private(set)", but "write once + 
>>> private(set) - final", which is... just kinda screwy.  That means our 
>>> options are:
>>> 
>>> * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
>>> * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
>>> * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.
>>
>> Another possible option is:
>>
>> * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.
>>
>> That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in 
>> a compatible and acceptable way?
>>
>> —Claude
>
> Only sort of compatible.  It would allow readonly props to be 
> redefined, and wouldn't break any existing code, I think... but it 
> would mean any time you use readonly, suddenly a child class can come 
> along and mess with it out from under you.
>
> In practice that's likely not a common concern, but it is a behavior 
> change.  I think it's possible (I need to confirm with Ilija), if we 
> want that slight BC break, but I don't know if we do.
>
> --Larry Garfield

Ilija and I have been discussing this issue over the last few days.  We agree 
that `private(set)` should imply `final`, as that eliminates a bunch of issues 
both implementation-wise and expectation-wise.  However, that causes an issue 
for `readonly`.  

The root issue is that if we say "`readonly int $x` is really just 
`private(set) readonly int $x`", that runs into the issue of "whelp, you've 
just made readonly always final, which is a BC break."  So that's no good.

We see a couple of ways to resolve this, presented below in our order of 
preference.

1. Disallow readonly with aviz => No BC break, and we don't need to define 
readonly in terms of private(set).  The only really useful combination anyway 
would be `readonly protected(set)`, in which case the protected(set) is doing 
90% of the work already.  There's few cases where the readonly is truly 
necessary at that point.  Any other oddball edge cases could be handled by a 
custom hook.
2. Make `readonly` implicitly `protected(set)` unless you explicitly specify 
`private(set)` => Would have the most consistent result, and this is probably 
the cleanest in the engine, as `readonly private(set)` would mean exactly what 
it says on the tin, with no inconsistency of "well it's kinda sorta 
`private(set)`" as `readonly` has now.  However, this would be an expectation 
change, as suddenly all readonly properties could be written to from a child 
class.  That may be good in some cases but it's possible some objects could 
have unexpected behavior if they didn't expect to be extended.  (No existing 
code will break, but you could now do things to it in a child class that the 
author didn't anticipate.)
3. You can't mix `readonly` with `private(set)`, but can use other visibilities 
=> No BC break, and we don't need to define readonly in terms of 
`private(set)`.  However, it means the implicit `private(set)` of `readonly` 
and an explicit private(set) behave differently (one is final, one is not).  It 
also unclear if a `readonly` property can be overridden with `readonly 
protected(set)` only, or also `readonly private(set)`.  If the latter, does it 
become implicitly `final` at that point?
4. `readonly` behaves differently for an explicit (final) and implicit 
(not-final) `private(set)` => No BC break, but it's kinda weird and non-obvious 
to explain.  It also has the same non-obvious inheritance questions as option 3.

We consider only the first two to be really viable.  For simplicity, we'd favor 
doing option 1, and if desired option 2 could be presented in the future as its 
own RFC as that is technically a behavior change, not just addition, so 
deserves careful consideration.  However, if there is a clear consensus to go 
with option 2 now, we're open to that.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 6/4/24 15:30, Larry Garfield wrote:

If enough people felt strongly that it should be allowed, I don't think there's 
any technical reason it couldn't be allowed, other than it would allow some 
rather silly combinations.  (Ilija can tell me if I'm wrong.)  However, also 
note that it is, of course, much easier to allow more combinations in the 
future than to remove them, should we find they cause trouble.


One thing that would get pretty wonky would be private-read properties: 
Private property names are currently internally "mangled" to include the 
class name. This allows to define the same private property in multiple 
classes of an inheritance chain, without those classes needing to know 
about the private properties of each other and making the addition and 
removal of a private property not a BC break. For all intents and 
purposes those private properties to not exist, unless you are the class 
itself.


I have no idea what the semantics of a public-write, private-read 
property should be - and this problem is pretty similar to the 
sibling-discussion about making private-set properties implicitly final, 
because otherwise the semantics get wonky.


I believe that the case of making a property public-write, private-read 
is best left to a virtual set-only hook.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, at 5:01 AM, Andreas Heigl wrote:

> There is only one thing that I stumbled upon which struck me as odd:
>
>  > The set visibility, if specified explicitly, MUST be equal to or
>  > lesser than the main (get) visibility. That is, protected public(set)
>  > string $foo is not allowed.
>
> Why?
>
> Why can we not set a property as publicly writable but unreadable?
>
> If that is a technical necessity, then so be it. But if that is a 
> logical limitation, then I'm asking myself: why do we want to explicitly 
> limit possible usecases? Not that I have one right now in my mind but I 
> do know that we used similar settings in Filesystems for letterbox 
> systems where users could copy files into other users letterbox (write 
> only) without being able to later see the files.
>
> Similar possibilities are available here here a property could be 
> publicly writeable but only privately readable as read-access is only 
> granted via a method.
>
> I'm not saying it's the usualy use-case, but why explicitly disallowing it?

It's not a technical requirement.  Mainly, we just cannot think of a reason why 
you'd ever do that, so making some seemingly nonsensical cases illegal seems 
like a good guardrail.

If enough people felt strongly that it should be allowed, I don't think there's 
any technical reason it couldn't be allowed, other than it would allow some 
rather silly combinations.  (Ilija can tell me if I'm wrong.)  However, also 
note that it is, of course, much easier to allow more combinations in the 
future than to remove them, should we find they cause trouble.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Andreas Heigl]

Hey Larry, hey Ilija


Am 29.05.24 um 21:15 schrieb Larry Garfield:

As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric visibility.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2

It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few 
adjustments and changes:

* readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
* We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else set 
is the most common use case.
* The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The implementation 
itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less confusing now.
* We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) and with 
interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist at the time of 
the last draft.
* We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete improvement, 
even in a world with readonly and hooks.
* We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was chosen.

*dons flame retardant suit*


In general I do like the RFC. No need for a flame retardand suit IMO ;-)

There is only one thing that I stumbled upon which struck me as odd:

> The set visibility, if specified explicitly, MUST be equal to or
> lesser than the main (get) visibility. That is, protected public(set)
> string $foo is not allowed.

Why?

Why can we not set a property as publicly writable but unreadable?

If that is a technical necessity, then so be it. But if that is a 
logical limitation, then I'm asking myself: why do we want to explicitly 
limit possible usecases? Not that I have one right now in my mind but I 
do know that we used similar settings in Filesystems for letterbox 
systems where users could copy files into other users letterbox (write 
only) without being able to later see the files.


Similar possibilities are available here here a property could be 
publicly writeable but only privately readable as read-access is only 
granted via a method.


I'm not saying it's the usualy use-case, but why explicitly disallowing it?

Cheers

Andreas

--
  ,,,
 (o o)
+-ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl   |
| mailto:andr...@heigl.org  N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org   |
+-+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas   |
+-+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg  |
+-+


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Alexandru Pătrănescu]

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 7:13 PM Larry Garfield 
wrote:

>
> So we feel the best way forward is to make the following changes:
>
> * private(set) implicitly means "final".  (You can declare it explicitly
> if you want, but it isn't necessary.)
> * Make readonly incompatible with aviz again.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I think making properties `final` when using `private(set)` is a good
solution to this.

I don't think `readonly` needs to be incompatible with aviz. We can have
`readonly` act as `private(set`) but not `final` by default.
But you can define it as `private(set) readonly`, and in this case it will
be `final`, practically the same as `final readonly`.
It would go like this:
- private(set) -> final, private(set)
- final private(set) -> final, private(set)
- readonly -> write-once, private(set)
- final readonly -> final, write-once, private(set)
- private(set) readonly -> final, write-once, private(set)
- protected(set) readonly -> write-once, protected(set)
- public(set) readonly -> write-once, public(set)


>
> Also, Alexandru noted earlier that final properties don't seem to be
> supported in constructor promotion.  That's an oversight from the hooks
> implementation, not a design choice, so Ilija will just fix that as part of
> the hooks PR before it gets fully merged.
>

Maybe we need to have some discussion/considerations about allowing new
modifiers on constructor promoted properties parameters.
Right now there is no `final` modifier for parameters, but this means we
might not be able to allow them in the future.
In other languages (Java), it makes the parameter variable a constant (not
reassignable).

So this decision might have implications so that when we decide to make
variables or parameters not reassignable, we will not be able to use
"final" as a keyword.
Not saying there is a problem, just that we need to be aware of it, as
probably `final` is not a very good choice, and `const` or `readonly` are
probably better options.

Alex

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Erick de Azevedo Lima]

> So we feel the best way forward is to make the following changes:
>
> * private(set) implicitly means "final".  (You can declare it explicitly
if you want, but it isn't necessary.)
> * Make readonly incompatible with aviz again.

I'd make readonly incompatible with aviz. Readonly props have its
"peculiarities" that are being (found and) changed on each version.
If you don't want to change your value ever, use readonly.
If you want more flexibility, use aviz.

Making workarounds on the aviz RFC so it can be compatible with readonly is
not worth it, IMO.

Best regards,
Erick

Em sex., 31 de mai. de 2024 às 20:53, Claude Pache 
escreveu:

>
>
> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>
> So we feel the best way forward is to make the following changes:
>
> * private(set) implicitly means "final".  (You can declare it explicitly
> if you want, but it isn't necessary.)
> * Make readonly incompatible with aviz again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> After reflection, I don’t think that we need to make readonly incompatible
> with aviz, even with the current semantics of readonly (at least logically;
> no idea about implementationally):
>
> * legacy-readonly properties could keep their own peculiar
> `private-overridable(set)` if they want;
> * aviz-readonly properties have, by definition, one of `public(set)`,
> `protected(set)` or `private(set)` marker; those will work regularly,
> including the implicit `final` attached to `private(set)`;
> * a non-aviz readonly property could not be redeclared in a subclass as
> aviz-readonly, and vice versa.
>
> —Claude
>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Claude Pache]

> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> So we feel the best way forward is to make the following changes:
> 
> * private(set) implicitly means "final".  (You can declare it explicitly if 
> you want, but it isn't necessary.)
> * Make readonly incompatible with aviz again.
> 
> Thoughts?


After reflection, I don’t think that we need to make readonly incompatible with 
aviz, even with the current semantics of readonly (at least logically; no idea 
about implementationally):

* legacy-readonly properties could keep their own peculiar 
`private-overridable(set)` if they want;
* aviz-readonly properties have, by definition, one of `public(set)`, 
`protected(set)` or `private(set)` marker; those will work regularly, including 
the implicit `final` attached to `private(set)`;
* a non-aviz readonly property could not be redeclared in a subclass as 
aviz-readonly, and vice versa.

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Robert Landers]

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:13 PM Claude Pache  wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>
> However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties 
> (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope 
> (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, the 
> definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different from how 
> inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same property, a 
> special check is needed to verify the two properties are related.  All that 
> special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 wouldn't really be 
> "write once + private(set)", but "write once + private(set) - final", which 
> is... just kinda screwy.  That means our options are:
>
> * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
> * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
> * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.
>
>
> Another possible option is:
>
> * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.
>
> That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in a 
> compatible and acceptable way?
>
> —Claude
>
>

I know this doesn't really contribute to the conversation ... but if I
could ever mash a +1 on a single email, this is the email I'd choose.

"Best elegant solution that happens to delete readonly without
deleting readonly" award.

Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 5:45 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>> 
>> However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties 
>> (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope 
>> (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, the 
>> definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different from 
>> how inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same 
>> property, a special check is needed to verify the two properties are 
>> related.  All that special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 
>> wouldn't really be "write once + private(set)", but "write once + 
>> private(set) - final", which is... just kinda screwy.  That means our 
>> options are:
>> 
>> * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
>> * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
>> * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.
>
> Another possible option is:
>
> * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.
>
> That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in 
> a compatible and acceptable way?
>
> —Claude

Only sort of compatible.  It would allow readonly props to be redefined, and 
wouldn't break any existing code, I think... but it would mean any time you use 
readonly, suddenly a child class can come along and mess with it out from under 
you.

In practice that's likely not a common concern, but it is a behavior change.  I 
think it's possible (I need to confirm with Ilija), if we want that slight BC 
break, but I don't know if we do.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Claude Pache]

> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties 
> (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope 
> (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, the 
> definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different from how 
> inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same property, a 
> special check is needed to verify the two properties are related.  All that 
> special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 wouldn't really be 
> "write once + private(set)", but "write once + private(set) - final", which 
> is... just kinda screwy.  That means our options are:
> 
> * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
> * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
> * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.

Another possible option is:

* Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.

That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in a 
compatible and acceptable way?

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 12:04 PM, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:30 AM Claude Pache  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 30 mai 2024 à 17:07, Derick Rethans  a écrit :
>>> 
 
 Now, if I define the property as public private(set) with similar 
 intentions, to make sure that there is no way for external scope or 
 extending classes scope to write to the property, while allowing 
 reading from external scope (or extending classes scope).
 
 But the problem is that an extending class can define the property as 
 public protected(set), and that will easily allow the property that I 
 wanted to make sure it is private for writing to be changed by an 
 extending class to be protected.
>>> 
>>> public private(set) properties aren't really private, so you don't get 
>>> the shadowing, but you do have a point wrt to the expectation that an 
>>> inherited class can't easily override the private(set) part (with 
>>> protected(set) or public(set)).
>> 
>> 
>> Note that the issue already exists today with readonly properties: those are 
>> basically private(set); but if you redeclare a non-private readonly property 
>> in a subclass, you can in fact initialise it from the subclass bypassing the 
>> initial private(set) restriction of the superclass: https://3v4l.org/9AV4r
>
> Yes, thank you; that's a good point.
> Seems like another issue with readonly, but then again, the 
> private(set) part of readonly is not really explicitly designed, I 
> guess.
> 
>> 
>> If you want a property not to be overridable, end of story, you can mark it 
>> as `final` (the final marker for properties was added as part of the hooks 
>> RFC, but it works also with non-hooked properties).
>
> Yes, it seems like a good enough option, and use "final public 
> private(set)" to ensure only the current class will be able to set the 
> value.
> If we all agree, I think this should be documented in the RFC.
>
> There is another small problem, I think, with "final" modifier not 
> being allowed for constructor-promoted properties.
> And maybe we can have this fixed in the current RFC if this ends up 
> being "the correct" way to define public-read private-write properties.
>
> Regards,
> Alex

Mm, yeah, this is an interesting corner case we'd not thought of.  We spent a 
little time looking at how other languages handle this.

Kotlin just disallows using private-set on a non-final property.  (Kotlin 
properties are final by default, unless otherwise specified.)  cf: 
https://kotlinlang.org/spec/inheritance.html#overriding

C# disallows changing property visibility in child classes entirely.  cf: 
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/restricting-accessor-accessibility#access-modifiers-on-overriding-accessors

Swift is... weird.  If you have a public private(set) property, you can 
override it by turning it into a virtual property with only a get hook.  If you 
also define a set hook, though, it just never gets called.  It doesn't appear 
that you can widen the set visibility, I think.

So since we now have final properties (yay, hooks RFC!), we could probably 
mostly solve this by just only allowing private(set) on a final property, like 
Kotlin.  That's probably the easiest approach.  We can also make private(set) 
properties implicitly final to avoid lots of boilerplate.  (Having to always 
type final with private(set) every time is kinda silly.)

It would mean that proxy objects implemented using child classes with hooks 
would only work with a public protected(set) class, not with a private(set), 
but that's probably fine, and since no one is doing that quite yet, obviously, 
there's no existing code to be concerned about.

However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties (in 
8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope (the 
class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, the 
definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different from how 
inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same property, a 
special check is needed to verify the two properties are related.  All that 
special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 wouldn't really be "write 
once + private(set)", but "write once + private(set) - final", which is... just 
kinda screwy.  That means our options are:

* A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
* Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
* Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.

After some consideration, we believe the third option is best (least bad).  The 
other options add still-more special cases or break existing code, neither of 
which are good.  If a property is declared private(set), then child classes 
simply should not be allowed to change that, period.  Even adding a get hook in 
a child is potentially a problem, as it would change the "round trip" behavior 
in ways the par

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Claude Pache]

> Le 30 mai 2024 à 12:16, Vincent de Lau  a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> We went through a bunch of syntax variations last year, including "public
>> private", "public:private", and "public private:set", plus a few others.
>> In an RCV poll, public private(set) was the favorite. (See link at the end
>> of the RFC.)  It also allows for extension to other operations and scopes,
>> and for the short-hand syntax.  Many of the other options did not support
>> those.  Thus we stuck with the known syntax that had the most flexibility
>> and most support.
> 
> Would it make sense to do another RCV poll now that hooks are accepted, after 
> lengthy discussion over its syntax? 
> 

At the time the poll was conducted, it was already known that a hooks RFC was 
in preparation, that could be compatible with either option, syntax-wise. Now, 
we have hooks that are compatible with both options, syntax-wise. I don’t think 
that would change the aesthetic preferences of people.

But now, we have indeed more information, namely detailed technical information 
on how the two features (hooks and aviz) interact effectively with 
references/arrays/readonly. At the time the poll was conducted, I was 
*moderately* in favour of the Swift-style syntax, mostly based on the general 
principle that things that are logically orthogonal should be implemented as 
orthogonal. If the same poll is done today, I will be *strongly* in favour of 
the Swift-style syntax, because I know more precisely how both features 
interact with arrays and readonly.

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Alexandru Pătrănescu]

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:30 AM Claude Pache 
wrote:

>
>
> Le 30 mai 2024 à 17:07, Derick Rethans  a écrit :
>
>
> Now, if I define the property as public private(set) with similar
> intentions, to make sure that there is no way for external scope or
> extending classes scope to write to the property, while allowing
> reading from external scope (or extending classes scope).
>
> But the problem is that an extending class can define the property as
> public protected(set), and that will easily allow the property that I
> wanted to make sure it is private for writing to be changed by an
> extending class to be protected.
>
>
> public private(set) properties aren't really private, so you don't get
> the shadowing, but you do have a point wrt to the expectation that an
> inherited class can't easily override the private(set) part (with
> protected(set) or public(set)).
>
>
>
> Note that the issue already exists today with readonly properties: those
> are basically private(set); but if you redeclare a non-private readonly
> property in a subclass, you can in fact initialise it from the subclass
> bypassing the initial private(set) restriction of the superclass:
> https://3v4l.org/9AV4r
>

Yes, thank you; that's a good point.
Seems like another issue with readonly, but then again, the private(set)
part of readonly is not really explicitly designed, I guess.


>
> If you want a property not to be overridable, end of story, you can mark
> it as `final` (the final marker for properties was added as part of the
> hooks RFC, but it works also with non-hooked properties).
>

Yes, it seems like a good enough option, and use "final public
private(set)" to ensure only the current class will be able to set the
value.
If we all agree, I think this should be documented in the RFC.

There is another small problem, I think, with "final" modifier not being
allowed for constructor-promoted properties.
And maybe we can have this fixed in the current RFC if this ends up
being "the correct" way to define public-read private-write properties.

Regards,
Alex

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Claude Pache]

> Le 30 mai 2024 à 17:07, Derick Rethans  a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Now, if I define the property as public private(set) with similar 
>> intentions, to make sure that there is no way for external scope or 
>> extending classes scope to write to the property, while allowing 
>> reading from external scope (or extending classes scope).
>> 
>> But the problem is that an extending class can define the property as 
>> public protected(set), and that will easily allow the property that I 
>> wanted to make sure it is private for writing to be changed by an 
>> extending class to be protected.
> 
> public private(set) properties aren't really private, so you don't get 
> the shadowing, but you do have a point wrt to the expectation that an 
> inherited class can't easily override the private(set) part (with 
> protected(set) or public(set)).



Note that the issue already exists today with readonly properties: those are 
basically private(set); but if you redeclare a non-private readonly property in 
a subclass, you can in fact initialise it from the subclass bypassing the 
initial private(set) restriction of the superclass: https://3v4l.org/9AV4r

If you want a property not to be overridable, end of story, you can mark it as 
`final` (the final marker for properties was added as part of the hooks RFC, 
but it works also with non-hooked properties).

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Derick Rethans]

On Thu, 30 May 2024, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:

> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:18 PM Larry Garfield 
> wrote:
> 
> > As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric
> > visibility.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
> >
> >
> Hey Larry, Ilija,
> 
> I have one concern so far, and it's related to the inheritance section.
> 
> If in a class I define the property as private,
> I know that there is no way for external scope or extending classes scope
> to read or write to the property.
> (of course, ignoring reading/writing using reflection or re-binded closures)
> 
> If an extending class defines the property with a wider visibility,
> protected or public, it will shadow the initial one and not change its
> visibility.

private and protected differ here already, even without async 
visibility:

https://3v4l.org/8Ynog

A protected property does not create a new bag to store data in, which 
does happen for a private property.

> Now, if I define the property as public private(set) with similar 
> intentions, to make sure that there is no way for external scope or 
> extending classes scope to write to the property, while allowing 
> reading from external scope (or extending classes scope).
> 
> But the problem is that an extending class can define the property as 
> public protected(set), and that will easily allow the property that I 
> wanted to make sure it is private for writing to be changed by an 
> extending class to be protected.

public private(set) properties aren't really private, so you don't get 
the shadowing, but you do have a point wrt to the expectation that an 
inherited class can't easily override the private(set) part (with 
protected(set) or public(set)).

Hopefully Ilija or Larry can explain :-)

cheers,
Derick

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Vincent de Lau]

> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Garfield 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 10:03 PM
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 7:53 PM, Andreas Hennings wrote:
> > Hello Larry,
> > just a quick thought.
> > Is there a reason why we cannot just make it "public private string
> > $x" instead of "public private(set) string $x"?
> > We would define that the second visibility specifier is for write.
> >
> > The current proposal with "public private(set)" is less ambiguous, and
> > it is immediately obvious that this is something new, and not just
> > somebody accidentally added two modifiers.
> > At the same time, it feels a bit alien and cluttered.
> >
> > Other options could be something like "public:private" or "public-
> private".
> >
> > A consequence of such options would be that you always need to specify
> > the read visibility along with the write visibility.
> > But this seems ok to me.
> >
> > This is not a final opinion, just a thought.

> We went through a bunch of syntax variations last year, including "public
> private", "public:private", and "public private:set", plus a few others.
> In an RCV poll, public private(set) was the favorite. (See link at the end
> of the RFC.)  It also allows for extension to other operations and scopes,
> and for the short-hand syntax.  Many of the other options did not support
> those.  Thus we stuck with the known syntax that had the most flexibility
> and most support.

Would it make sense to do another RCV poll now that hooks are accepted, after 
lengthy discussion over its syntax? 

Personally, I would prefer the HookEmbeddedStyle form. I don't think the 
argument that the visibility would potentially be separated from the hook 
definition is very strong, as you would have to scan for the existence of the 
hook anyway. For me, asymmetric visibility and property hooks are mentally more 
related than the RFC technically defines them to be.

Furthermore, I see a lot of reasoning in favour of the prefix syntax in 
relation to limitations of other language constructs like property promotion. 
While I don't think it is fair to expect this RFC should fix those, to me it 
feels we are compounding 'errors'.

Thanks to both you and Ilija for all the hard work on these RFC's, it is much 
appreciated!

--
Vincent de Lau

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Alexandru Pătrănescu]

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:18 PM Larry Garfield 
wrote:

> As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric
> visibility.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>
>
Hey Larry, Ilija,

I have one concern so far, and it's related to the inheritance section.

If in a class I define the property as private,
I know that there is no way for external scope or extending classes scope
to read or write to the property.
(of course, ignoring reading/writing using reflection or re-binded closures)

If an extending class defines the property with a wider visibility,
protected or public, it will shadow the initial one and not change its
visibility.

Now, if I define the property as public private(set) (or protected
private(set)) with similar intentions,
to make sure that there is no way for external scope or extending classes
scope to write to the property,
while allowing reading from external scope (or extending classes scope).

But the problem is that an extending class can define the property as
public protected(set) (or protected protected(set)),
and that will easily allow the property that I wanted to make sure it is
private for writing to be changed by an extending class to be protected.


The main suggestion I can think of, is to now allow widening the write
visibility when it is private.

I mean, in general, to make sure it is not possible for other extending
classes to access private parent class properties/methods we can use two
mechanisms:
- disallowing to change the visibility and making it an error
- shadowing the parent property/method
While shadowing works for symmetric visibility, it doesn't really work for
asymmetric visibility, so disallowing seems to be a good option here.

Also, maybe marking the properties as final could play a role here,
not allowing private visibility for write on properties to be widened or
completely not allowing it to change/redefined.


Regards,
Alex

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 7:51 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 5/29/24 21:15, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else 
>> set is the most common use case.
>
> The most common use case is that 'get' and 'set' are symmetric. 

OK, fair, I meant in the most common case where you're using aviz at all, get 
is probably public.

That said, with both hooks and aviz, I can see data objects, for instance, 
becoming commonly public-get, private-set.  It's already common to have them be 
public readonly, so this is just an extension of that.

> Any 
> divergence from that should stand out and I think that the hamming 
> distance between
>
>  protected string $foo;
>
> and
>
>  protected(set) string $foo;
>
> is too small.

I can only respectfully disagree here.  I think it's reasonably self-evident, 
made moreso by the (), which as Andreas noted looks weird when you're not used 
to it (but we should get used to fairly quickly).  And the benefit of not 
having to type "public" on every property outweighs any initial confusion, much 
the same as readonly classes just reduces boilerplate.

> One note regarding the text. You already confirmed to me in private that:
>
>  class Foo {
>  private $dontTouchMe;
>  }
>
>  $backdoor = function ($key, $value) { $this->{$key} = $value; };
>
>  $f = new Foo();
>  $backdoor->call($f, 'dontTouchMe', 'butIDid');
>  var_dump($f);
>
> would work as expected with aviz. It would make sense to explicitly 
> spell that out, just like it's explicitly spelled out that 
> `ReflectionProperty::setValue()` works.

Added a note to that effect in the Reflection section as well.  Thanks.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 5/29/24 21:53, Andreas Hennings wrote:

Is there a reason why we cannot just make it "public private string
$x" instead of "public private(set) string $x"?
We would define that the second visibility specifier is for write.

The current proposal with "public private(set)" is less ambiguous, and
it is immediately obvious that this is something new, and not just
somebody accidentally added two modifiers.
At the same time, it feels a bit alien and cluttered.

Other options could be something like "public:private" or "public-private".


The variant with the parentheses is the most future-proof one, should 
additional operations be added. It would allow for:


public private(set,unset,frobnicate) string $foo;

Even if tools would not yet understand whatever 'frobnicate' does, they 
would know that this is an operation that may be performed on $foo and 
would be able to syntax highlight the visibility definition properly and 
they would also know how to autoformat it, without needing to add 
support for the new keyword.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, May 29, 2024, at 7:53 PM, Andreas Hennings wrote:
> Hello Larry,
> just a quick thought.
> Is there a reason why we cannot just make it "public private string
> $x" instead of "public private(set) string $x"?
> We would define that the second visibility specifier is for write.
>
> The current proposal with "public private(set)" is less ambiguous, and
> it is immediately obvious that this is something new, and not just
> somebody accidentally added two modifiers.
> At the same time, it feels a bit alien and cluttered.
>
> Other options could be something like "public:private" or "public-private".
>
> A consequence of such options would be that you always need to specify
> the read visibility along with the write visibility.
> But this seems ok to me.
>
> This is not a final opinion, just a thought.
>
> -- Andreas

We went through a bunch of syntax variations last year, including "public 
private", "public:private", and "public private:set", plus a few others.  In an 
RCV poll, public private(set) was the favorite. (See link at the end of the 
RFC.)  It also allows for extension to other operations and scopes, and for the 
short-hand syntax.  Many of the other options did not support those.  Thus we 
stuck with the known syntax that had the most flexibility and most support.

By other operations, I mean, suppose we allow varying the visibility for 
obtaining a reference separate from a set (for some reason).  It's obvious how 
that would look with the current syntax: public protected(ref) private(set).  
With "public private" or "public:private", it's really not clear how we'd even 
do that.

--Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Andreas Hennings]

Hello Larry,
just a quick thought.
Is there a reason why we cannot just make it "public private string
$x" instead of "public private(set) string $x"?
We would define that the second visibility specifier is for write.

The current proposal with "public private(set)" is less ambiguous, and
it is immediately obvious that this is something new, and not just
somebody accidentally added two modifiers.
At the same time, it feels a bit alien and cluttered.

Other options could be something like "public:private" or "public-private".

A consequence of such options would be that you always need to specify
the read visibility along with the write visibility.
But this seems ok to me.

This is not a final opinion, just a thought.

-- Andreas

On Wed, 29 May 2024 at 21:17, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>
> As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric visibility.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2
>
> It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few 
> adjustments and changes:
>
> * readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
> * We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else set 
> is the most common use case.
> * The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The 
> implementation itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less 
> confusing now.
> * We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) and with 
> interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist at the time of 
> the last draft.
> * We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete improvement, 
> even in a world with readonly and hooks.
> * We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was chosen.
>
> *dons flame retardant suit*
>
> --
>   Larry Garfield
>   la...@garfieldtech.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 5/29/24 21:15, Larry Garfield wrote:

* We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else set 
is the most common use case.


The most common use case is that 'get' and 'set' are symmetric. Any 
divergence from that should stand out and I think that the hamming 
distance between


protected string $foo;

and

protected(set) string $foo;

is too small.

Other than that the proposal looks good to me. Ship it.

--

One note regarding the text. You already confirmed to me in private that:

class Foo {
private $dontTouchMe;
}

$backdoor = function ($key, $value) { $this->{$key} = $value; };

$f = new Foo();
$backdoor->call($f, 'dontTouchMe', 'butIDid');
var_dump($f);

would work as expected with aviz. It would make sense to explicitly 
spell that out, just like it's explicitly spelled out that 
`ReflectionProperty::setValue()` works.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2

[Larry Garfield]

As promised, Ilija and I offer this revised version of asymmetric visibility.  

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility-v2

It's still essentially the same as last year's version, but with a few 
adjustments and changes:

* readonly properties are now supported in a logical fashion.
* We've brought back the abbreviated form, as public-read, something else set 
is the most common use case.
* The section on magic methods has been greatly simplified.  The implementation 
itself hasn't changed, but the explanation is a lot less confusing now.
* We've explained how aviz interacts with hooks (they don't, really) and with 
interface properties (in the obvious way), which didn't exist at the time of 
the last draft.
* We've added a section with examples of how aviz is a concrete improvement, 
even in a world with readonly and hooks.
* We've added a section discussing why the prefix-style syntax was chosen.

*dons flame retardant suit*

-- 
  Larry Garfield
  la...@garfieldtech.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Dan Ackroyd]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 00:07, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022, at 7:20 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> > Hi Larry,
> >
> > Regarding the syntax, up until now PHP has only supported the letters
> > a-z and underscore in keywords.
> >
> > I realise this is an aesthetic thing, but "private(set)" looks like a
> > function to me, and not a keyword. I saw the previous poll, and it
> > didn't include options for either protected_set/private_set or
> > protectedset/privateset.
> >
> > Was there a technical reason for excluding them as an option?
>
> Not in particular.  We originally proposed `private(set)` because that's what 
> Swift uses.  In the discussion people proposed several alternatives that I 
> put into the poll, but `private_set` wasn't one of them.  Although several 
> people said they were opposed to parens in the keyword,

Have you considered updating the RFC to use private_set, and not
introduce new characters for keywords?

As it wasn't in the poll, then sticking to the poll result with at
least some people saying they are opposed to it seems not necessarily
the correct choice. The ()'s look particularly funky to me with
property promotion.

cheers
Dan
Ack

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Ilija Tovilo]

Hi Robert

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 3:54 PM Robert Landers  wrote:
>
> One quick question,
>
> Will changing the property of a protected/private set via reflection
> be allowed? Or will you have to do some shenanigans like you currently
> have to do with readonly?

Since PHP 8.1 ReflectionProperty::setValue() allows writing to any
property from any scope by default (assuming it is not readonly)
without calling ReflectionProperty::setAccessible() first.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/make-reflection-setaccessible-no-op

Essentially, there's no change to the existing behavior. You can write
to an asymmetric property using setValue() just like you could to a
protected or private property as the visibility check is skipped for
these cases.

I added a sentence to the RFCs reflection section to clarify.
Thanks for pointing this out.

Ilija

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Robert Landers]

One quick question,

Will changing the property of a protected/private set via reflection
be allowed? Or will you have to do some shenanigans like you currently
have to do with readonly?

Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:29 PM Larry Garfield  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, at 3:23 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
> >>> Le 13 déc. 2022 à 16:34, Claude Pache  a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
> >>>
> >>> ```php
> >>> class C {
> >>> $a;
> >>> int $b;
> >>> }
> >>> ```
> >>>
> >>> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` 
> >>> visibility:
> >>>
> >>> ```php
> >>> class C {
> >>> static $c;
> >>> readonly int $d;
> >>> }
> >>> ```
> >>>
> >>> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the 
> >>> `public` keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the 
> >>> most controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? 
> >>> Because of this inconsistency, people are incited to always write 
> >>> explicitly `public` anyway.
> >>>
> >>> —Claude
> >>
> >>
> >> However, I’m just realising that omitting `public` in declarations like
> >> `public $a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because it
> >> is incompatible with constructor property promotion, as `function
> >> __construct(public int $b) { }`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }`
> >> have different meanings.
> >>
> >> —Claude
> >
> > Well, it seems the only people who have opinions on the abbreviated
> > form at all dislike it, so we've removed it for now and left a mention
> > in future-scope.  A future RFC can add that if desired.
> >
> > That should, I think, be the final change to the asymmetric visibility
> > RFC.  Baring anything else coming up, I expect to call the vote
> > sometime the week of 2 January.
> >
> > Happy $holiday!
> >
> > --Larry Garfield
>
> Happy New Year, PHP.  Fair warning, I will be opening the vote for asymmetric 
> visibility on Friday, baring any sudden new inputs in the next 40-ish hours.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, at 3:23 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>>> Le 13 déc. 2022 à 16:34, Claude Pache  a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
>>> 
>>> ```php
>>> class C {
>>> $a;
>>> int $b;
>>> }
>>> ```
>>> 
>>> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` 
>>> visibility:
>>> 
>>> ```php
>>> class C {
>>> static $c;
>>> readonly int $d;
>>> }
>>> ```
>>> 
>>> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the 
>>> `public` keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the most 
>>> controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Because of 
>>> this inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly `public` 
>>> anyway.
>>> 
>>> —Claude
>>
>>
>> However, I’m just realising that omitting `public` in declarations like 
>> `public $a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because it 
>> is incompatible with constructor property promotion, as `function 
>> __construct(public int $b) { }`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }` 
>> have different meanings.
>>
>> —Claude
>
> Well, it seems the only people who have opinions on the abbreviated 
> form at all dislike it, so we've removed it for now and left a mention 
> in future-scope.  A future RFC can add that if desired.
>
> That should, I think, be the final change to the asymmetric visibility 
> RFC.  Baring anything else coming up, I expect to call the vote 
> sometime the week of 2 January.
>
> Happy $holiday!
>
> --Larry Garfield

Happy New Year, PHP.  Fair warning, I will be opening the vote for asymmetric 
visibility on Friday, baring any sudden new inputs in the next 40-ish hours.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 13 déc. 2022 à 16:34, Claude Pache  a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
>> 
>> ```php
>> class C {
>> $a;
>> int $b;
>> }
>> ```
>> 
>> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` 
>> visibility:
>> 
>> ```php
>> class C {
>> static $c;
>> readonly int $d;
>> }
>> ```
>> 
>> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the `public` 
>> keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the most 
>> controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Because of 
>> this inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly `public` 
>> anyway.
>> 
>> —Claude
>
>
> However, I’m just realising that omitting `public` in declarations like 
> `public $a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because it 
> is incompatible with constructor property promotion, as `function 
> __construct(public int $b) { }`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }` 
> have different meanings.
>
> —Claude

Well, it seems the only people who have opinions on the abbreviated form at all 
dislike it, so we've removed it for now and left a mention in future-scope.  A 
future RFC can add that if desired.

That should, I think, be the final change to the asymmetric visibility RFC.  
Baring anything else coming up, I expect to call the vote sometime the week of 
2 January.

Happy $holiday!

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

> Le 13 déc. 2022 à 16:34, Claude Pache  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:
> 
> ```php
> class C {
> $a;
> int $b;
> }
> ```
> 
> while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` 
> visibility:
> 
> ```php
> class C {
> static $c;
> readonly int $d;
> }
> ```
> 
> It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the `public` 
> keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the most 
> controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Because of 
> this inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly `public` 
> anyway.
> 
> —Claude


However, I’m just realising that omitting `public` in declarations like `public 
$a` and `public int $b` is probably not a good idea, because it is incompatible 
with constructor property promotion, as `function __construct(public int $b) { 
}`, and `function __construct(int $b) { }` have different meanings.

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

> Le 11 déc. 2022 à 20:18, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> On 11/29/22 21:29, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
>>> changes to the RFC:
>>> 
>>> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
>>> section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, 
>>> but we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various 
>>> nuances of just that piece.
>>> 
>>> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included 
>>> Ilija and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The 
>>> text may still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is 
>>> already complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not 
>>> change anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it 
>>> just inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's 
>>> consistent.
>>> 
>>> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
>>> Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly 
>>> after New Years.
>>> 
>> 
>> Okay, then I'd like to officially "request" that the abbreviated form 
>> [1] is dropped:
>> 
>> I believe 'protected(set) string $foo' is easily confused with 
>> 'protected string $foo' at a simple glance.
>> 
>> Also any implicit rules are something developers will need to learn by 
>> heart, whereas an explicit 'public protected(set) string $foo' could 
>> reasonably be understood by someone without any PHP experience and some 
>> basic experience of OO concepts.
>> 
>> Having two separate explicit keywords also makes it much clearer that 
>> asymmetric visibility is involved, because it's also asymmetric in the code.
>> 
>> I believe the only benefit of the abbreviated form is saving 6 
>> keystrokes (+ one hit to the spacebar) and I don't believe it's worth 
>> the lack of clarity for an important property of the defined property.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Tim Düsterhus
>> 
>> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have feelings on this point?  IMO, the shorthand makes a lot 
> of sense when used with readonly to avoid lines getting just annoyingly long, 
> but without it I can see the argument for not allowing it; it's about a wash 
> in terms of length with readonly today.  I'm comfortable going with the 
> consensus on this one for now.
> 
> --Larry Garfield

Hi,

As of today, the following declarations are rejected as syntax errors:

``php
class C {
$a;
int $b;
}
```

while the following declarations are accepted with implicit `public` visibility:

``php
class C {
static $c;
readonly int $d;
}
```

It would be reasonable to propose to allow to consistently omit the `public` 
keyword. But allowing to omit it in some cases (including the most 
controversial one: `protected(set)`) and not in other cases...? Because of this 
inconsistency, people are incited to always write explicitly `public` anyway.

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 12 Dec 2022, at 02:18, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> On 11/29/22 21:29, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>> Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
>>> changes to the RFC:
>>> 
>>> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
>>> section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, 
>>> but we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various 
>>> nuances of just that piece.
>>> 
>>> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included 
>>> Ilija and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The 
>>> text may still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is 
>>> already complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not 
>>> change anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it 
>>> just inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's 
>>> consistent.
>>> 
>>> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
>>> Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly 
>>> after New Years.
>>> 
>> 
>> Okay, then I'd like to officially "request" that the abbreviated form 
>> [1] is dropped:
>> 
>> I believe 'protected(set) string $foo' is easily confused with 
>> 'protected string $foo' at a simple glance.
>> 
>> Also any implicit rules are something developers will need to learn by 
>> heart, whereas an explicit 'public protected(set) string $foo' could 
>> reasonably be understood by someone without any PHP experience and some 
>> basic experience of OO concepts.
>> 
>> Having two separate explicit keywords also makes it much clearer that 
>> asymmetric visibility is involved, because it's also asymmetric in the code.
>> 
>> I believe the only benefit of the abbreviated form is saving 6 
>> keystrokes (+ one hit to the spacebar) and I don't believe it's worth 
>> the lack of clarity for an important property of the defined property.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Tim Düsterhus
>> 
>> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have feelings on this point?  IMO, the shorthand makes a lot 
> of sense when used with readonly to avoid lines getting just annoyingly long, 
> but without it I can see the argument for not allowing it; it's about a wash 
> in terms of length with readonly today.  I'm comfortable going with the 
> consensus on this one for now.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

I’ll just re-iterate what I said in chat a while ago - I think requiring the 
dev to be explicit about making it public is a safer first step, and it has no 
BC risk if you wanted to later allow the implicit variant, and without the 
capability to combine with the readonly keyword (yet) it doesn’t seem like a 
huge problem to be explicit IMO.



Cheers

Stephen 
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 11/29/22 21:29, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
>> changes to the RFC:
>> 
>> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
>> section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, 
>> but we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various nuances 
>> of just that piece.
>> 
>> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included 
>> Ilija and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The text 
>> may still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is 
>> already complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not 
>> change anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it 
>> just inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's 
>> consistent.
>> 
>> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
>> Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly 
>> after New Years.
>> 
>
> Okay, then I'd like to officially "request" that the abbreviated form 
> [1] is dropped:
>
> I believe 'protected(set) string $foo' is easily confused with 
> 'protected string $foo' at a simple glance.
>
> Also any implicit rules are something developers will need to learn by 
> heart, whereas an explicit 'public protected(set) string $foo' could 
> reasonably be understood by someone without any PHP experience and some 
> basic experience of OO concepts.
>
> Having two separate explicit keywords also makes it much clearer that 
> asymmetric visibility is involved, because it's also asymmetric in the code.
>
> I believe the only benefit of the abbreviated form is saving 6 
> keystrokes (+ one hit to the spacebar) and I don't believe it's worth 
> the lack of clarity for an important property of the defined property.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus
>
> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form


Does anyone else have feelings on this point?  IMO, the shorthand makes a lot 
of sense when used with readonly to avoid lines getting just annoyingly long, 
but without it I can see the argument for not allowing it; it's about a wash in 
terms of length with readonly today.  I'm comfortable going with the consensus 
on this one for now.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022, at 12:47 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 3 déc. 2022 à 19:28, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>> 
>> I also clarified that static properties are explicitly not supported with 
>> a-viz.  
>
> This is a serious issue, not necessarily because it is of great value, 
> but because it introduces an unexpected asymmetry between static and 
> non-static properties. In other words, from a user point-of-view, it is 
> expected that staticness is orthogonal to visibility.
>
> Therefore, I would expect that the RFC has a dedicated section about 
> static properties (as it has already one about [un]typed properties), 
> not just a small sentence in the intro that could be overlooked.
>
>
>> and as it's of limited value we're not going to bother.
>
> Whether it’s of limited value or not, depends, I suppose, of coding 
> style. Personally, I use static properties for various good and bad 
> reasons, and some of them would be happy to take advantage of 
> asymmetric visibility. E.g.:
>
> * I may store settings that concern the whole class (and that I cannot 
> or want not register as constants) in static properties;
>
> * My typical implementation of “monostate pattern” is not: 
> `Foo::getInstance()->bar()`, `Foo::getInstance()->baz`, but: 
> `Foo::bar()`, `Foo::$baz`;
>
> * ...
>
> Of course, I would accept the reason “it is difficult to implement”, 
> but not the excuse “it is almost worthless”.

It is difficult to implement, and thus we're not going to put in the effort to 
figure out how to do it because the value is so much less. :-)  But fair 
enough, I'll move it to its own section so it's more readily apparent.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

> Le 3 déc. 2022 à 19:28, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> I also clarified that static properties are explicitly not supported with 
> a-viz.  

This is a serious issue, not necessarily because it is of great value, but 
because it introduces an unexpected asymmetry between static and non-static 
properties. In other words, from a user point-of-view, it is expected that 
staticness is orthogonal to visibility.

Therefore, I would expect that the RFC has a dedicated section about static 
properties (as it has already one about [un]typed properties), not just a small 
sentence in the intro that could be overlooked.


> and as it's of limited value we're not going to bother.

Whether it’s of limited value or not, depends, I suppose, of coding style. 
Personally, I use static properties for various good and bad reasons, and some 
of them would be happy to take advantage of asymmetric visibility. E.g.:

* I may store settings that concern the whole class (and that I cannot or want 
not register as constants) in static properties;

* My typical implementation of “monostate pattern” is not: 
`Foo::getInstance()->bar()`, `Foo::getInstance()->baz`, but: `Foo::bar()`, 
`Foo::$baz`;

* ...

Of course, I would accept the reason “it is difficult to implement”, but not 
the excuse “it is almost worthless”.


—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022, at 7:11 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:

> The proposed __set behaviour in this RFC will mean the second example 
> **won’t work**, and that is both extremely unintuitive and IMO, 
> technically unnecessary with regards to avoiding BC breaks.
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen

Thanks to the wonders of real-time high-bandwidth communication (online chat), 
we've been able to clarify and adjust the behavior of a-viz with __set in a way 
that is internally consistent and has no BC breaks.  I've updated the RFC 
accordingly with the dirty details, but the long story short is that we've been 
able to define it such that unset() is no longer necessary on set-not-visible 
properties; they'll still trigger __set without that.  Readonly properties 
still do, as they do today, but that's off topic to think about.

I also clarified that static properties are explicitly not supported with 
a-viz.  That's mainly for implementation reasons; it's just really hard to do, 
and as it's of limited value we're not going to bother.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 2 Dec 2022, at 18:31, Ilija Tovilo  wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephen
> 
>> So here’s my last attempt:
>> 
>> Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
>> 
>> You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so that’s 
>> not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly the authors of 
>> that rfc can either keep the limitation as it exists **for readonly 
>> properties** (I’m not an expert but I don’t believe this would be a BC break 
>> either), or decide to drop the limitation completely (deliberate BC break)
>> 
>> Keeping the limitation now on non-readonly properties makes no sense, and 
>> will be confusing to user land developers.
> 
> This behavior is already not limited to readonly, it works the same
> for normal typed properties.
> https://3v4l.org/WpBp4
> 
> The set-visibility is not relevant here: When unset has been called,
> __set will be called (and __get too). The set-visibility is only
> relevant when unset hasn't been called, as that will influence whether
> the property is written to or an error is thrown. The RFC is actually
> wrong saying this is specifically due to readonly properties. This
> behavior has been here for a while.
> 
> See the relevant commit:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f1848a4b3f807d21415c5a334b461d240b2a83af
> 
>> Assigning to an uninitialized typed property will no longer trigger
>> a call to __set(). However, calls to __set() are still triggered if
>> the property is explicitly unset().
> 
>> This gives us both the behavior people generally expect, and still
>> allows ORMs to do lazy initialization by unsetting properties.
> 
>> For PHP 8, we should fine a way to forbid unsetting of declared
>> properties entirely, and provide a different way to achieve lazy
>> initialization.
> 
> I'm not sure if anybody actually makes use of this trick. It might be
> worth removing this weird behavior by offering an alternative. In any
> case, this is out of scope for this RFC.
> 
> Regards,
> Ilija
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

Hi Ilija

I’m not sure if you missed my earlier emails but I’m pretty sure you’ve 
misunderstood what I’m asking about.

I’m not, and have never, asked for the behaviour of explicitly unset() 
properties to change. Not once, never, nada. I do agree that the behaviour 
weird, but its weird in a way that gives userland developers more 
power/capability, not less.


What I *am* asking for, is that when a non-readonly property is declared with 
protected or private `set` visibility, an attempt to set/write that property 
from outside the class will trigger __set(), exactly the way it does now for a 
property declared as protected or private.

If it’s not obvious the major reason for this is to allow dropping  __get 
boilerplate while maintaining the ability to have checks/custom logic on 
set/write (i.e. a poor mans property set accessor), and thus existing code that 
uses this can easily and safely upgrade to using asymmetric visibility without 
affecting the __set handler logic.


To make it crystal clear, here is an example:

```
class FooSym {
   protected string $bar;

   public function __set($name, $value) {
  if ($name === 'bar') {
 $this->bar = $value;
  }
   }

   public function __get($name) {
  if ($name === 'bar') {
 return $this->bar;
  }
   }
}

$f = new FooSym;
$f->bar = 'hello';
echo $f->bar;


class FooAsym {
   public protected(set) string $bar;

   public function __set($name, $value) {
  if ($name === 'bar') {
 $this->bar = $value;
  }
   }

}

$f = new FooAsym;
$f->bar = 'hello';
echo $f->bar;

```

The first class is a trivial example of what works right now. No use of unset() 
is required, it behaves as expected.

The proposed __set behaviour in this RFC will mean the second example **won’t 
work**, and that is both extremely unintuitive and IMO, technically unnecessary 
with regards to avoiding BC breaks.

Cheers

Stephen 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Nicolas Grekas]

Le ven. 2 déc. 2022 à 12:32, Ilija Tovilo  a écrit :

> Hi Stephen
>
> > So here’s my last attempt:
> >
> > Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
> >
> > You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so
> that’s not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly the
> authors of that rfc can either keep the limitation as it exists **for
> readonly properties** (I’m not an expert but I don’t believe this would be
> a BC break either), or decide to drop the limitation completely (deliberate
> BC break)
> >
> > Keeping the limitation now on non-readonly properties makes no sense,
> and will be confusing to user land developers.
>
> This behavior is already not limited to readonly, it works the same
> for normal typed properties.
> https://3v4l.org/WpBp4
>
> The set-visibility is not relevant here: When unset has been called,
> __set will be called (and __get too). The set-visibility is only
> relevant when unset hasn't been called, as that will influence whether
> the property is written to or an error is thrown. The RFC is actually
> wrong saying this is specifically due to readonly properties. This
> behavior has been here for a while.
>
> See the relevant commit:
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f1848a4b3f807d21415c5a334b461d240b2a83af
>
> > Assigning to an uninitialized typed property will no longer trigger
> > a call to __set(). However, calls to __set() are still triggered if
> > the property is explicitly unset().
>
> > This gives us both the behavior people generally expect, and still
> > allows ORMs to do lazy initialization by unsetting properties.
>
> > For PHP 8, we should fine a way to forbid unsetting of declared
> > properties entirely, and provide a different way to achieve lazy
> > initialization.
>
> I'm not sure if anybody actually makes use of this trick. It might be
> worth removing this weird behavior by offering an alternative. In any
> case, this is out of scope for this RFC.
>

Yes, there are critical features built on this, especially Ocramius'
ProxyManager and more recently Symfony's VarExporter, both to provide lazy
initialization. This is an important capability provided by the engine. It
should be preserved (in the current form or a better one possibly of
course.)

Nicolas

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Ilija Tovilo]

Hi Stephen

> So here’s my last attempt:
>
> Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
>
> You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so that’s 
> not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly the authors of 
> that rfc can either keep the limitation as it exists **for readonly 
> properties** (I’m not an expert but I don’t believe this would be a BC break 
> either), or decide to drop the limitation completely (deliberate BC break)
>
> Keeping the limitation now on non-readonly properties makes no sense, and 
> will be confusing to user land developers.

This behavior is already not limited to readonly, it works the same
for normal typed properties.
https://3v4l.org/WpBp4

The set-visibility is not relevant here: When unset has been called,
__set will be called (and __get too). The set-visibility is only
relevant when unset hasn't been called, as that will influence whether
the property is written to or an error is thrown. The RFC is actually
wrong saying this is specifically due to readonly properties. This
behavior has been here for a while.

See the relevant commit:
https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f1848a4b3f807d21415c5a334b461d240b2a83af

> Assigning to an uninitialized typed property will no longer trigger
> a call to __set(). However, calls to __set() are still triggered if
> the property is explicitly unset().

> This gives us both the behavior people generally expect, and still
> allows ORMs to do lazy initialization by unsetting properties.

> For PHP 8, we should fine a way to forbid unsetting of declared
> properties entirely, and provide a different way to achieve lazy
> initialization.

I'm not sure if anybody actually makes use of this trick. It might be
worth removing this weird behavior by offering an alternative. In any
case, this is out of scope for this RFC.

Regards,
Ilija

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 2 Dec 2022, at 01:21, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
> 
 So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation
 detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with
 declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic
 setter method?
>>> There's a couple of reasons.
>>> One, and arguably the most important, readonly and aviz being incompatible 
>>> is, hopefully, a temporary situation.  There's some fiddly bits to work out 
>>> design-wise, and based on earlier comments in the thread we're going to 
>>> punt on that for now to avoid that dragging down the whole RFC.  I believe 
>>> we absolutely should allow them together in the future (maybe in a later 
>>> 8.3 RFC, maybe a future version, TBD), which means ensuring, now, that they 
>>> are compatible in the future.  This approach involves the fewest future BC 
>>> breaks.
>>> Second, I wouldn't call the current behavior of readonly a mere 
>>> implementation detail.  It's weird and unexpected, I'd agree, but only as a 
>>> side effect of previous design decisions, some of which are even older than 
>>> readonly.  But it's an observed behavior that code can rely on, and in some 
>>> cases does.  For example:
>>> https://peakd.com/hive-168588/@crell/php-tricks-lazy-public-readonly-properties
>>> The "unset a declared property to force it through __get once" is a trick 
>>> that some ORMs use extensively.  readonly just inherited that, leading to 
>>> the current behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the 
>>> property and its settedness.  This RFC doesn't change anything there.  
>>> The alternative would be to have __set called always for a non-public-set 
>>> property.  However, that is a place for bugs, as you then can't not have a 
>>> back-door way to publicly set a property even if it's declared 
>>> private(set).  (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set to avoid it.) 
>>>  That is both inconsistent with the language today, and error prone.
>>> Finally, we're planning to work in the near-future on property hooks (aka 
>>> property accessors), which would allow per-property custom set routines.  
>>> That would largely remove the issue entirely, as the use of __set would go 
>>> way down and you'd basically never have to use it with a declared property, 
>>> fancy tricks or no, so this issue would never come up at all.
>>> --Larry Garfield
>>> --
>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>> Hi Larry,
>> I think there must be some confusion somewhere, based on some of your 
>> comments.
>> I’m not suggesting that the “unset to force a **public** property to go
>> through getter/setter methods” logic should be specifically different.
>> I’m suggesting that when the decision is made to call __set or not, the
>> properties **set** visibility is what should be considered, not it’s
>> **get** visibility.
>> Your own comment even describes this behaviour: "leading to the current
>> behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the property"
>> But your RFC says that __set will depend on the **read/get** visibility
>> of the property.
>>> you then can't not have a back-door way to publicly set a property even if 
>>> it's declared private(set).  (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set 
>>> to avoid it.)  That is both inconsistent with the language today, and error 
>>> prone.
>> If a developer adds a _set() method that can write to a private(set)
>> property, I would expect that is working exactly as desired, exactly as
>> it does **now** where it’s just a “protected” property.
> 
> I think we're talking past each other a bit. :-)
> 
> The logic described in the RFC is, to the best of out knowledge, what already 
> happens in 8.1/8.2 with readonly.  Whether that is good or bad, obvious or 
> intuitive, it's what PHP already does, for better or worse.  We view readonly 
> as, effectively, a shorthand for "private(set) write-once" (which is what it 
> is), and want to ensure that future RFCs can do that explicitly so that we 
> can allow `public protected(set) readonly` in the future.
> 
> For that to be possible, not changing the existing behavior is a necessity.  
> Changing the behavior described in the RFC right now is a BC break.  That's 
> true whether the logic described in the RFC is good or not, because that's 
> how it already works with `readonly`.
> 
> Is it weird that __set depends in part on read visibility?  Kinda, yeah.  But 
> that's already the behavior in 8.1/8.2.  We're not changing anything, and 
> this RFC is not the place to break that kind of BC.
> 
> If someone can demonstrate that the logic described there is not what 
> actually happens now, please let us know, because the goal is to not change 
> any behavior in this regard.  Effectively, that whole section is descriptive 
> of PHP today and a comment 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 11/29/22 21:29, Larry Garfield wrote:

Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
changes to the RFC:

1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, but 
we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various nuances of 
just that piece.

2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included Ilija 
and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The text may 
still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is already 
complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not change 
anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it just 
inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's consistent.

The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly after 
New Years.



Okay, then I'd like to officially "request" that the abbreviated form 
[1] is dropped:


I believe 'protected(set) string $foo' is easily confused with 
'protected string $foo' at a simple glance.


Also any implicit rules are something developers will need to learn by 
heart, whereas an explicit 'public protected(set) string $foo' could 
reasonably be understood by someone without any PHP experience and some 
basic experience of OO concepts.


Having two separate explicit keywords also makes it much clearer that 
asymmetric visibility is involved, because it's also asymmetric in the code.


I believe the only benefit of the abbreviated form is saving 6 
keystrokes (+ one hit to the spacebar) and I don't believe it's worth 
the lack of clarity for an important property of the defined property.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

[1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:

>>> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation 
>>> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with 
>>> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic 
>>> setter method?
>> 
>> There's a couple of reasons.
>> 
>> One, and arguably the most important, readonly and aviz being incompatible 
>> is, hopefully, a temporary situation.  There's some fiddly bits to work out 
>> design-wise, and based on earlier comments in the thread we're going to punt 
>> on that for now to avoid that dragging down the whole RFC.  I believe we 
>> absolutely should allow them together in the future (maybe in a later 8.3 
>> RFC, maybe a future version, TBD), which means ensuring, now, that they are 
>> compatible in the future.  This approach involves the fewest future BC 
>> breaks.
>> 
>> Second, I wouldn't call the current behavior of readonly a mere 
>> implementation detail.  It's weird and unexpected, I'd agree, but only as a 
>> side effect of previous design decisions, some of which are even older than 
>> readonly.  But it's an observed behavior that code can rely on, and in some 
>> cases does.  For example:
>> 
>> https://peakd.com/hive-168588/@crell/php-tricks-lazy-public-readonly-properties
>> 
>> The "unset a declared property to force it through __get once" is a trick 
>> that some ORMs use extensively.  readonly just inherited that, leading to 
>> the current behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the 
>> property and its settedness.  This RFC doesn't change anything there.  
>> 
>> The alternative would be to have __set called always for a non-public-set 
>> property.  However, that is a place for bugs, as you then can't not have a 
>> back-door way to publicly set a property even if it's declared private(set). 
>>  (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set to avoid it.)  That is both 
>> inconsistent with the language today, and error prone.
>> 
>> Finally, we're planning to work in the near-future on property hooks (aka 
>> property accessors), which would allow per-property custom set routines.  
>> That would largely remove the issue entirely, as the use of __set would go 
>> way down and you'd basically never have to use it with a declared property, 
>> fancy tricks or no, so this issue would never come up at all.
>> 
>> --Larry Garfield
>> 
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> Hi Larry,
>
>
> I think there must be some confusion somewhere, based on some of your 
> comments.
>
> I’m not suggesting that the “unset to force a **public** property to go 
> through getter/setter methods” logic should be specifically different.
>
> I’m suggesting that when the decision is made to call __set or not, the 
> properties **set** visibility is what should be considered, not it’s 
> **get** visibility.
>
> Your own comment even describes this behaviour: "leading to the current 
> behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the property"
>
> But your RFC says that __set will depend on the **read/get** visibility 
> of the property.
>
>
>> you then can't not have a back-door way to publicly set a property even if 
>> it's declared private(set).  (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set 
>> to avoid it.)  That is both inconsistent with the language today, and error 
>> prone.
>
> If a developer adds a _set() method that can write to a private(set) 
> property, I would expect that is working exactly as desired, exactly as 
> it does **now** where it’s just a “protected” property.

I think we're talking past each other a bit. :-)

The logic described in the RFC is, to the best of out knowledge, what already 
happens in 8.1/8.2 with readonly.  Whether that is good or bad, obvious or 
intuitive, it's what PHP already does, for better or worse.  We view readonly 
as, effectively, a shorthand for "private(set) write-once" (which is what it 
is), and want to ensure that future RFCs can do that explicitly so that we can 
allow `public protected(set) readonly` in the future.

For that to be possible, not changing the existing behavior is a necessity.  
Changing the behavior described in the RFC right now is a BC break.  That's 
true whether the logic described in the RFC is good or not, because that's how 
it already works with `readonly`.

Is it weird that __set depends in part on read visibility?  Kinda, yeah.  But 
that's already the behavior in 8.1/8.2.  We're not changing anything, and this 
RFC is not the place to break that kind of BC.

If someone can demonstrate that the logic described there is not what actually 
happens now, please let us know, because the goal is to not change any behavior 
in this regard.  Effectively, that whole section is descriptive of PHP today 
and a comment "and we're not breaking it."

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailin

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 1 Dec 2022, at 08:38, Stephen Reay  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Nov 2022, at 22:09, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 11:25 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Larry,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, 
>>> but I have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the 
>>> logic of readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not 
>>> readonly” - this is even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made 
>>> them mutually exclusive behaviours.
>>> 
>>> I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems 
>>> like it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify 
>>> unintuitive behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more 
>>> obvious way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with 
>>> “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing 
>>> “__set()” behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve 
>>> indicated these features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are 
>>> mutually exclusive? 
>>> 
>>> While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited 
>>> form of asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in 
>>> terms of intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to 
>>> comprehend even with readonly:
>>> 
>>> - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if 
>>> it’s declared as protected, __set is called when the property is 
>>> accessed from outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that 
>>> readonly imposes an implicit visibility difference - but that is 
>>> essentially an implementation detail, from the point of view of the 
>>> userland developer, it’s not a clear statement of intended behaviour on 
>>> their part, expressed through the code as written.
>>> 
>>> For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why 
>>> __set() isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a 
>>> public property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the 
>>> property behind the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared, 
>>> it’s the implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular, 
>>> non-readonly fields: when the field is declared public (or has implicit 
>>> public visibility) __set() is never called.
>>> 
>>> If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the 
>>> property is written to from outside the class, regardless of whether 
>>> it’s readonly or not.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely 
>>> unintuitive: when attempting to *write* data to a property that is 
>>> marked as protected(set), the __set() method will not be called.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation 
>>> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with 
>>> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic 
>>> setter method?
>> 
>> There's a couple of reasons.
>> 
>> One, and arguably the most important, readonly and aviz being incompatible 
>> is, hopefully, a temporary situation.  There's some fiddly bits to work out 
>> design-wise, and based on earlier comments in the thread we're going to punt 
>> on that for now to avoid that dragging down the whole RFC.  I believe we 
>> absolutely should allow them together in the future (maybe in a later 8.3 
>> RFC, maybe a future version, TBD), which means ensuring, now, that they are 
>> compatible in the future.  This approach involves the fewest future BC 
>> breaks.
>> 
>> Second, I wouldn't call the current behavior of readonly a mere 
>> implementation detail.  It's weird and unexpected, I'd agree, but only as a 
>> side effect of previous design decisions, some of which are even older than 
>> readonly.  But it's an observed behavior that code can rely on, and in some 
>> cases does.  For example:
>> 
>> https://peakd.com/hive-168588/@crell/php-tricks-lazy-public-readonly-properties
>> 
>> The "unset a declared property to force it through __get once" is a trick 
>> that some ORMs use extensively.  readonly just inherited that, leading to 
>> the current behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the 
>> property and its settedness.  This RFC doesn't change anything there.  
>> 
>> The alternative would be to have __set called always for a non-public-set 
>> property.  However, that is a place for bugs, as you then can't not have a 
>> back-door way to publicly set a property even if it's declared private(set). 
>>  (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set to avoid it.)  That is both 
>> inconsistent with the language today, and error prone.
>> 
>> Finally, we're planning to work in the near-future on property hooks (aka 
>> property accessors), which would allow per-property custom set routines.  
>> That would largely remove the issue entirely, as the use of __set would go 
>> way down and you'd basically never have to use it

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 30 Nov 2022, at 22:09, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 11:25 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
> 
>> Hi Larry,
>> 
>> Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, 
>> but I have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the 
>> logic of readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not 
>> readonly” - this is even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made 
>> them mutually exclusive behaviours.
>> 
>> I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems 
>> like it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify 
>> unintuitive behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more 
>> obvious way.
>> 
>> 
>> Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with 
>> “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing 
>> “__set()” behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve 
>> indicated these features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are 
>> mutually exclusive? 
>> 
>> While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited 
>> form of asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in 
>> terms of intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to 
>> comprehend even with readonly:
>> 
>> - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if 
>> it’s declared as protected, __set is called when the property is 
>> accessed from outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that 
>> readonly imposes an implicit visibility difference - but that is 
>> essentially an implementation detail, from the point of view of the 
>> userland developer, it’s not a clear statement of intended behaviour on 
>> their part, expressed through the code as written.
>> 
>> For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why 
>> __set() isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a 
>> public property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the 
>> property behind the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared, 
>> it’s the implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular, 
>> non-readonly fields: when the field is declared public (or has implicit 
>> public visibility) __set() is never called.
>> 
>> If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the 
>> property is written to from outside the class, regardless of whether 
>> it’s readonly or not.
>> 
>> 
>> What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely 
>> unintuitive: when attempting to *write* data to a property that is 
>> marked as protected(set), the __set() method will not be called.
>> 
>> 
>> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation 
>> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with 
>> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic 
>> setter method?
> 
> There's a couple of reasons.
> 
> One, and arguably the most important, readonly and aviz being incompatible 
> is, hopefully, a temporary situation.  There's some fiddly bits to work out 
> design-wise, and based on earlier comments in the thread we're going to punt 
> on that for now to avoid that dragging down the whole RFC.  I believe we 
> absolutely should allow them together in the future (maybe in a later 8.3 
> RFC, maybe a future version, TBD), which means ensuring, now, that they are 
> compatible in the future.  This approach involves the fewest future BC breaks.
> 
> Second, I wouldn't call the current behavior of readonly a mere 
> implementation detail.  It's weird and unexpected, I'd agree, but only as a 
> side effect of previous design decisions, some of which are even older than 
> readonly.  But it's an observed behavior that code can rely on, and in some 
> cases does.  For example:
> 
> https://peakd.com/hive-168588/@crell/php-tricks-lazy-public-readonly-properties
> 
> The "unset a declared property to force it through __get once" is a trick 
> that some ORMs use extensively.  readonly just inherited that, leading to the 
> current behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the property 
> and its settedness.  This RFC doesn't change anything there.  
> 
> The alternative would be to have __set called always for a non-public-set 
> property.  However, that is a place for bugs, as you then can't not have a 
> back-door way to publicly set a property even if it's declared private(set).  
> (Or, you have to be very careful in your __set to avoid it.)  That is both 
> inconsistent with the language today, and error prone.
> 
> Finally, we're planning to work in the near-future on property hooks (aka 
> property accessors), which would allow per-property custom set routines.  
> That would largely remove the issue entirely, as the use of __set would go 
> way down and you'd basically never have to use it with a declared property, 
> fancy tricks or no, so this issue would never come up at all.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime De

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 12:10 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the behaviour of the following code?
>
> ```php
> class Foo {
> public private(set) array $bar = [ ];
> }
>
> $foo = new Foo;
>
> $foo->bar['x'] = 'y'; // error?
>
> var_dump(isset($foo->bar['x'])); // true?, false?
> ```
>
> I think that modification of an array should require write access? 
> (That should be clarified in the RFC.)

Correct, that would not be allowed.  Array writes are always indirect 
modification, because it's two steps to get to it.  That will error out in this 
case, as one would expect from `private(set)`.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

Hi,

What is the behaviour of the following code?

```php
class Foo {
public private(set) array $bar = [ ];
}

$foo = new Foo;

$foo->bar['x'] = 'y'; // error?

var_dump(isset($foo->bar['x'])); // true?, false?
```

I think that modification of an array should require write access? (That should 
be clarified in the RFC.)

—Claude
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 2:29 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Hi folks.  Ilija is nearly done with the implementation for asymmetric 
>> visibility and flushing out edge cases, but we've run into one design 
>> question we'd like feedback on.
>>
>> There's two design decisions we've made at this point, both of which we 
>> think are logical and reasonable:
>>
>> 1. If specified, the set visibility must be tighter than the get 
>> visibility.  So `protected protected(set)` and `protected public(set)` 
>> are not permitted, for instance.
>>
>> 2. `readonly` is a "write once" flag that may be combined with 
>> asymmetric visibility.  If no set visibility is specified, `readoly` 
>> implies `private(set)`, but a different set visibility may also be 
>> provided.
>>
>> These are both reasonable rules.  However, it creates a conflict.  
>> Specifically, in the following cases:
>>
>> public public(set) readonly string $foo
>>
>> protected protected(set) readonly string $foo
>>
>> These would be the only way to have a non-private-set readonly 
>> property.  While the first is in practice quite unlikely, the second 
>> has valid use cases.  (In particular, a base class that provides 
>> properties expected to be set by a child constructor, and then used by 
>> a method in the parent class.)  However, it would not be allowed under 
>> the rules above.  Working around it would require specifying `public 
>> protected(set) readonly...`, which means exposing a property that 
>> likely should not be exposed.
>>
>> That creates an odd situation where readonly and asymmetric visibility 
>> may only be combined "sometimes."  That is not deesireable.  The only 
>> way to combine them in their current form is to allow `protected 
>> protected(set)` only if readonly is in use, which is excessively 
>> complicated both to implement and to explain/document/use.
>>
>> We see two possible ways to resolve this conflict:
>>
>> 1. Relax the set-is-tighter restriction.  That would allow `protected 
>> protected(set)` etc. on any property.  It wouldn't be particularly 
>> useful unless readonly is being used, but it would be syntactically 
>> legal and behave as you'd expect.  We could still disallow "set is more 
>> permissive" combinations (eg, `private public(set)`), as those have no 
>> apparent use case.
>>
>> 2. Disallow readonly and asymmetric visibility being combined, because 
>> readonly already has a hard-coded implied asymmetric visibility.  This 
>> option removes some potential use cases (they would most likely drop 
>> the readonly), but has the upside that it's easier to re-allow at some 
>> point in the future.
>>
>> 3. Some other brilliant idea we've not thought of.
>>
>>
>> Both are viable approaches with pros and cons.  We're split on which 
>> way to go with this, so we throw it out to the group for feedback.  
>> Which approach would you favor, or do you have some other brilliant 
>> idea to square this circle?
>
>
> Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made 
> two changes to the RFC:
>
> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've 
> added a section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in 
> the future, but we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on 
> the various nuances of just that piece.
>
> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also 
> included Ilija and I digging into all the nuances that are already 
> present.  The text may still look a bit complex, but that's because the 
> existing logic is already complex with readonly.  Long story short, the 
> a-viz RFC does not change anything in the way __set works vis a vis 
> asymmetric visibility; it just inherits and continues what readonly 
> already started, so it's consistent.
>
> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest 
> changes.  Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote 
> for it shortly after New Years.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> --Larry Garfield


One other update: Nicolas poked me off list to remind me that the RFC didn't 
mention inheritance at all.  Oops. :-)  The patch already has inheritance well 
handled and tested, it just wasn't described in the RFC.  I have added a 
section that documents the behavior.  Short version: You can continue to 
expand, but not contract, the visibility in child classes, but you can do it 
for get and set separately.  It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect it to 
do.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 11:25 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, 
> but I have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the 
> logic of readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not 
> readonly” - this is even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made 
> them mutually exclusive behaviours.
>
> I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems 
> like it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify 
> unintuitive behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more 
> obvious way.
>
>
> Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with 
> “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing 
> “__set()” behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve 
> indicated these features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are 
> mutually exclusive? 
>
> While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited 
> form of asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in 
> terms of intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to 
> comprehend even with readonly:
>
> - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if 
> it’s declared as protected, __set is called when the property is 
> accessed from outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that 
> readonly imposes an implicit visibility difference - but that is 
> essentially an implementation detail, from the point of view of the 
> userland developer, it’s not a clear statement of intended behaviour on 
> their part, expressed through the code as written.
>
> For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why 
> __set() isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a 
> public property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the 
> property behind the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared, 
> it’s the implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular, 
> non-readonly fields: when the field is declared public (or has implicit 
> public visibility) __set() is never called.
>
> If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the 
> property is written to from outside the class, regardless of whether 
> it’s readonly or not.
>
>
> What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely 
> unintuitive: when attempting to *write* data to a property that is 
> marked as protected(set), the __set() method will not be called.
>
>
> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation 
> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with 
> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic 
> setter method?

There's a couple of reasons.

One, and arguably the most important, readonly and aviz being incompatible is, 
hopefully, a temporary situation.  There's some fiddly bits to work out 
design-wise, and based on earlier comments in the thread we're going to punt on 
that for now to avoid that dragging down the whole RFC.  I believe we 
absolutely should allow them together in the future (maybe in a later 8.3 RFC, 
maybe a future version, TBD), which means ensuring, now, that they are 
compatible in the future.  This approach involves the fewest future BC breaks.

Second, I wouldn't call the current behavior of readonly a mere implementation 
detail.  It's weird and unexpected, I'd agree, but only as a side effect of 
previous design decisions, some of which are even older than readonly.  But 
it's an observed behavior that code can rely on, and in some cases does.  For 
example:

https://peakd.com/hive-168588/@crell/php-tricks-lazy-public-readonly-properties

The "unset a declared property to force it through __get once" is a trick that 
some ORMs use extensively.  readonly just inherited that, leading to the 
current behavior: __set depends on the write/set visibility of the property and 
its settedness.  This RFC doesn't change anything there.  

The alternative would be to have __set called always for a non-public-set 
property.  However, that is a place for bugs, as you then can't not have a 
back-door way to publicly set a property even if it's declared private(set).  
(Or, you have to be very careful in your __set to avoid it.)  That is both 
inconsistent with the language today, and error prone.

Finally, we're planning to work in the near-future on property hooks (aka 
property accessors), which would allow per-property custom set routines.  That 
would largely remove the issue entirely, as the use of __set would go way down 
and you'd basically never have to use it with a declared property, fancy tricks 
or no, so this issue would never come up at all.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 4:02 AM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> Le 30 nov. 2022 à 02:27, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>> 
>>> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
>>> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
>>> ):
 The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
 strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
 only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
 visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in 
 a compile time error.
 
>>> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
>>> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the 
>>> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That 
>>> should be clarified.
>> 
>> Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main 
>> visibility.  The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)" is 
>> not allowed.
>
> As I understand the first sentence (what it says, not what you meant):
>
> “The set visibility, **if it differs from the main (get) visibility**, 
> {$some_restriction}.”
>
> In `public public(set)`, the set visibility does not differ from the 
> main/get visibility, therefore {$some_restriction} does not apply.
>
> My guess is that you wanted to say:
>
> “The set visibility, **if specified explicitly**, {$some_restriction}.”

Ahhh... I see what you're getting at.  Fair point, I'll adjust it.  Thanks.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

> Le 30 nov. 2022 à 02:27, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> 
>> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
>> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
>> ):
>>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
>>> strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
>>> only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
>>> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a 
>>> compile time error.
>>> 
>> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
>> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the 
>> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That 
>> should be clarified.
> 
> Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main visibility. 
>  The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)" is not allowed.

As I understand the first sentence (what it says, not what you meant):

“The set visibility, **if it differs from the main (get) visibility**, 
{$some_restriction}.”

In `public public(set)`, the set visibility does not differ from the main/get 
visibility, therefore {$some_restriction} does not apply.

My guess is that you wanted to say:

“The set visibility, **if specified explicitly**, {$some_restriction}.”

—Claude
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 30 Nov 2022, at 15:41, Alexandru Pătrănescu  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 05:25 Stephen Reay  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 30 Nov 2022, at 08:27, Larry Garfield  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> > 
> >> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
> >> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
> >>  
> >>  >> >):
> >>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
> >>> strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
> >>> only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
> >>> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in 
> >>> a compile time error.
> >>> 
> >> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
> >> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the 
> >> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That 
> >> should be clarified.
> > 
> > Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main 
> > visibility.  The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)" 
> > is not allowed.
> > 
> > (We may relax that in the future to make it compatible with readonly, but 
> > that's for later.)
> > 
> >> 
> >> (Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more 
> >> cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid 
> >> it.)
> >> 
> >>> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That would 
> >>> technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed.
> >> 
> >> That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden.
> > 
> > Good catch, fixed.  Thanks.
> > 
> > --Larry Garfield
> > 
> > -- 
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hi Larry,
> 
> Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, but I 
> have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the logic of 
> readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not readonly” - this is 
> even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made them mutually exclusive 
> behaviours.
> 
> I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems like 
> it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify unintuitive 
> behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more obvious way.
> 
> 
> Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with 
> “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing “__set()” 
> behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve indicated these 
> features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are mutually exclusive? 
> 
> While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited form of 
> asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in terms of 
> intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to comprehend even 
> with readonly:
> 
> - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if it’s 
> declared as protected, __set is called when the property is accessed from 
> outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that readonly imposes an 
> implicit visibility difference - but that is essentially an implementation 
> detail, from the point of view of the userland developer, it’s not a clear 
> statement of intended behaviour on their part, expressed through the code as 
> written.
> 
> For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why __set() 
> isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a public 
> property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the property behind 
> the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared, it’s the 
> implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular, non-readonly fields: 
> when the field is declared public (or has implicit public visibility) __set() 
> is never called.
> 
> If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the property is 
> written to from outside the class, regardless of whether it’s readonly or not.
> 
> 
> What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely unintuitive: 
> when attempting to *write* data to a property that is marked as 
> protected(set), the __set() method will not be called.
> 
> 
> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation 
> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with 
> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic setter 
> method?
> 
> 
> Hey, Stephen, Larry,
> Just clarifying how I see it:
> 
> Practically, the asymmetric visibil

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Alexandru Pătrănescu]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 05:25 Stephen Reay  wrote:

>
>
> > On 30 Nov 2022, at 08:27, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> >
> >> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility
> >> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility
> >> ):
> >>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST
> be strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility
> may only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set
> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a
> compile time error.
> >>>
> >> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected
> >> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the
> >> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That
> >> should be clarified.
> >
> > Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main
> visibility.  The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)"
> is not allowed.
> >
> > (We may relax that in the future to make it compatible with readonly,
> but that's for later.)
> >
> >>
> >> (Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more
> >> cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid
> >> it.)
> >>
> >>> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That
> would technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed.
> >>
> >> That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden.
> >
> > Good catch, fixed.  Thanks.
> >
> > --Larry Garfield
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, but
> I have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the logic of
> readonly to apply to something that is explicitly not readonly” - this is
> even more stark now that you’ve explicitly made them mutually exclusive
> behaviours.
>
> I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems
> like it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify unintuitive
> behaviour that breaks consistency in another, much more obvious way.
>
>
> Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with
> “readonly” than it does to maintain consistency with the existing “__set()”
> behaviour for properties, particularly now that you’ve indicated these
> features (asymmetric visibility and readonly) are mutually exclusive?
>
> While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited form
> of asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in terms of
> intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to comprehend even
> with readonly:
>
> - if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if it’s
> declared as protected, __set is called when the property is accessed from
> outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that readonly imposes an
> implicit visibility difference - but that is essentially an implementation
> detail, from the point of view of the userland developer, it’s not a clear
> statement of intended behaviour on their part, expressed through the code
> as written.
>
> For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why
> __set() isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a
> public property. PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the
> property behind the scenes, but that isn’t what the developer declared,
> it’s the implementation. This behaviour matches that of regular,
> non-readonly fields: when the field is declared public (or has implicit
> public visibility) __set() is never called.
>
> If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the property
> is written to from outside the class, regardless of whether it’s readonly
> or not.
>
>
> What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely
> unintuitive: when attempting to *write* data to a property that is marked
> as protected(set), the __set() method will not be called.
>
>
> So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation
> detail of readonly properties is more important than consistency with
> declared developer intention for regular properties via the magic setter
> method?
>
>
Hey, Stephen, Larry,
Just clarifying how I see it:

Practically, the asymmetric visibility for properties is not more or less
than asymmetric write-access for properties.
That is what is implemented, that is what other languages have as well and
this is what's needed.
Of course, except for relation with __set(), unset() and other php
specials, it wouldn't make a difference.

If you think it like this, that property is actually visible but only there
is a restriction on writing it, you would probably agree that __set

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Stephen Reay]

> On 30 Nov 2022, at 08:27, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
> 
>> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
>> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
>> ):
>>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
>>> strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
>>> only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
>>> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a 
>>> compile time error.
>>> 
>> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
>> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the 
>> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That 
>> should be clarified.
> 
> Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main visibility. 
>  The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)" is not allowed.
> 
> (We may relax that in the future to make it compatible with readonly, but 
> that's for later.)
> 
>> 
>> (Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more 
>> cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid 
>> it.)
>> 
>>> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That would 
>>> technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed.
>> 
>> That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden.
> 
> Good catch, fixed.  Thanks.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 
> -- 
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

Hi Larry,

Thank you for clarifying the setter behaviour in more explicit terms, but I 
have to say I’m quite disappointed in this continued “use the logic of readonly 
to apply to something that is explicitly not readonly” - this is even more 
stark now that you’ve explicitly made them mutually exclusive behaviours.

I’m generally very in favour of maintaining consistency, but this seems like 
it’s using technical consistency as an excuse to justify unintuitive behaviour 
that breaks consistency in another, much more obvious way.


Can you explain why it makes more sense to maintain consistency with “readonly” 
than it does to maintain consistency with the existing “__set()” behaviour for 
properties, particularly now that you’ve indicated these features (asymmetric 
visibility and readonly) are mutually exclusive? 

While it’s stated multiple times that “readonly” introduced a limited form of 
asymmetric visibility, and thus this is a continuation, in terms of 
intuitiveness, the existing __set() rules are very easy to comprehend even with 
readonly:

- if the property is declared as public, __set() is never called; if it’s 
declared as protected, __set is called when the property is accessed from 
outside that class or it’s hierarchy. Yes, I know that readonly imposes an 
implicit visibility difference - but that is essentially an implementation 
detail, from the point of view of the userland developer, it’s not a clear 
statement of intended behaviour on their part, expressed through the code as 
written.

For example, with `public readonly int $foo` it’s quite obvious why __set() 
isn’t called, using the exiting well-understood logic: it’s a public property. 
PHP applies a kind of asymmetric visibility to the property behind the scenes, 
but that isn’t what the developer declared, it’s the implementation. This 
behaviour matches that of regular, non-readonly fields: when the field is 
declared public (or has implicit public visibility) __set() is never called.

If we make that field protected, __set() will be called when the property is 
written to from outside the class, regardless of whether it’s readonly or not.


What you’re proposing changes that, in a way that is completely unintuitive: 
when attempting to *write* data to a property that is marked as protected(set), 
the __set() method will not be called.


So please, can you explain to me why consistency with an implementation detail 
of readonly properties is more important than consistency with declared 
developer intention for regular properties via the magic setter method?



Cheers

Stephen 

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 5:46 PM, Claude Pache wrote:

> In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
> ):
>> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
>> strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
>> only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
>> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a 
>> compile time error.
>> 
> The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
> protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the 
> main visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That 
> should be clarified.

Er.  That's exactly what it says: "strictly lesser" than the main visibility.  
The lines after are just restating it.  "public public(set)" is not allowed.

(We may relax that in the future to make it compatible with readonly, but 
that's for later.)

>
> (Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more 
> cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid 
> it.)
>
>> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That would 
>> technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed.
>
> That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden.

Good catch, fixed.  Thanks.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

> Le 29 nov. 2022 à 21:29, Larry Garfield  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
> changes to the RFC:
> 
> 1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
> section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, 
> but we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various nuances 
> of just that piece.
> 
> 2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included 
> Ilija and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The text 
> may still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is 
> already complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not 
> change anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it 
> just inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's consistent.
> 
> The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
> Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly 
> after New Years.
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> --Larry Garfield
> 

Hi,

In the RFC, section Permitted visibility 
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#permitted_visibility 
):
> The set visibility, if it differs from the main (get) visibility, MUST be 
> strictly lesser than the main visibility. That is, the set visibility may 
> only be protected or private. If the main visibility is protected, set 
> visibility may only be private. Any violation of this rule will result in a 
> compile time error.
> 
The first sentence does not forbid `public public(set)`, or `protected 
protected(set)`, etc. (the `set` visibility does not differ from the main 
visibility), but the rest of the paragraph does not allow it. That should be 
clarified.

(Because forbidding `public public(set)`, etc., makes it slightly more 
cumbersome to explain the rules, I am slightly in favour not to forbid it.)

> There is one exception, that of a private readonly property. That would 
> technically expand to private private(set) readonly, which is allowed.

That sentence should be deleted, as `readonly` is now forbidden.

—Claude

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Hi folks.  Ilija is nearly done with the implementation for asymmetric 
> visibility and flushing out edge cases, but we've run into one design 
> question we'd like feedback on.
>
> There's two design decisions we've made at this point, both of which we 
> think are logical and reasonable:
>
> 1. If specified, the set visibility must be tighter than the get 
> visibility.  So `protected protected(set)` and `protected public(set)` 
> are not permitted, for instance.
>
> 2. `readonly` is a "write once" flag that may be combined with 
> asymmetric visibility.  If no set visibility is specified, `readoly` 
> implies `private(set)`, but a different set visibility may also be 
> provided.
>
> These are both reasonable rules.  However, it creates a conflict.  
> Specifically, in the following cases:
>
> public public(set) readonly string $foo
>
> protected protected(set) readonly string $foo
>
> These would be the only way to have a non-private-set readonly 
> property.  While the first is in practice quite unlikely, the second 
> has valid use cases.  (In particular, a base class that provides 
> properties expected to be set by a child constructor, and then used by 
> a method in the parent class.)  However, it would not be allowed under 
> the rules above.  Working around it would require specifying `public 
> protected(set) readonly...`, which means exposing a property that 
> likely should not be exposed.
>
> That creates an odd situation where readonly and asymmetric visibility 
> may only be combined "sometimes."  That is not deesireable.  The only 
> way to combine them in their current form is to allow `protected 
> protected(set)` only if readonly is in use, which is excessively 
> complicated both to implement and to explain/document/use.
>
> We see two possible ways to resolve this conflict:
>
> 1. Relax the set-is-tighter restriction.  That would allow `protected 
> protected(set)` etc. on any property.  It wouldn't be particularly 
> useful unless readonly is being used, but it would be syntactically 
> legal and behave as you'd expect.  We could still disallow "set is more 
> permissive" combinations (eg, `private public(set)`), as those have no 
> apparent use case.
>
> 2. Disallow readonly and asymmetric visibility being combined, because 
> readonly already has a hard-coded implied asymmetric visibility.  This 
> option removes some potential use cases (they would most likely drop 
> the readonly), but has the upside that it's easier to re-allow at some 
> point in the future.
>
> 3. Some other brilliant idea we've not thought of.
>
>
> Both are viable approaches with pros and cons.  We're split on which 
> way to go with this, so we throw it out to the group for feedback.  
> Which approach would you favor, or do you have some other brilliant 
> idea to square this circle?


Thank you everyone for the feedback.  Based on this thread, we've made two 
changes to the RFC:

1. We've moved readonly back to forbidden with a-viz for now.  I've added a 
section to Future Scope where we really should sort this out in the future, but 
we'll do that in the future when we can all focus on the various nuances of 
just that piece.

2. I rewrote the section on __set to make it clearer.  That also included Ilija 
and I digging into all the nuances that are already present.  The text may 
still look a bit complex, but that's because the existing logic is already 
complex with readonly.  Long story short, the a-viz RFC does not change 
anything in the way __set works vis a vis asymmetric visibility; it just 
inherits and continues what readonly already started, so it's consistent.

The PR should be updated in the next week or two with the latest changes.  
Baring any major need for change, we expect to call a vote for it shortly after 
New Years.

Thanks all.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022, at 7:20 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> Regarding the syntax, up until now PHP has only supported the letters
> a-z and underscore in keywords.
>
> I realise this is an aesthetic thing, but "private(set)" looks like a
> function to me, and not a keyword. I saw the previous poll, and it
> didn't include options for either protected_set/private_set or
> protectedset/privateset.
>
> Was there a technical reason for excluding them as an option?

Not in particular.  We originally proposed `private(set)` because that's what 
Swift uses.  In the discussion people proposed several alternatives that I put 
into the poll, but `private_set` wasn't one of them.  Although several people 
said they were opposed to parens in the keyword, the two options that had 
parens (`private(set)` and `pubilc(set: private)`) were the leaders for all 
rounds.  I was quite surprised at that, personally; I expected `private:set` to 
do a lot better under the circumstances.  But that's not how the poll played 
out.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote:
>> To clarify my position:
>> 
>> * The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same 
>> restriction level than the get visibility.
>> 
>> * When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:
>>   * If `readonly` is present, the set visibility is `private` (as of 
>> today);
>>   * otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility 
>> (again, as of today).
>> 
>> * We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected protected(set) 
>> string $foo;` when you could just write `protected string $foo` for the same 
>> effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `public 
>> function()` when you could just write `function()` for the same effect. We 
>> leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or 
>> the long form is preferred.
>> 
>
> I agree with that.
>
> --
>
> As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate 
> discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's 
> clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section in 
> the RFC 
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) which 
> I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember 
> an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the 
> evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it 
> still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already 
> split into way-to-many threads and also the poll.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus

Yes, once we make a decision on this point, I'll respond in this thread.  

The abbreviated form was part of the discussion earlier, and the syntax we 
settled on supported it, so it made sense to include.

I try to highlight on the list any time notable changes are made, even if I 
don't always have a detailed changelog.  Whether it makes sense to use the same 
thread or a new thread varies, and I'm absolutely certain others will make a 
different judgement call on that than I do.  I'm not aware of any standard 
convention around that, so until one exists I'll just continue making vaguely 
educated guesses on that front.

Given the timing, Ilija says he'd prefer to not call the vote until after the 
new year/holidays.  Feedback still welcome at this point but aside from edge 
cases like this thread's, I think we're pretty well set on the basic features.  
Baring any major change of direction expect the vote to be called in early 
January, probably.  Time permitting we're going to also start work on property 
hooks/accessors, which is the intended follow-on to this RFC.

--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Tim Düsterhus]

Hi

On 11/14/22 21:02, Claude Pache wrote:

To clarify my position:

* The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same restriction 
level than the get visibility.

* When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:
  * If `readonly` is present, the set visibility is `private` (as of today);
  * otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility (again, 
as of today).

* We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected protected(set) 
string $foo;` when you could just write `protected string $foo` for the same 
effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `public 
function()` when you could just write `function()` for the same effect. We 
leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or the 
long form is preferred.



I agree with that.

--

As I'm sending an email anyway: Larry, will there be a a new separate 
discussion thread, once all the problems are resolved and once it's 
clear what you propose? I just noticed the "Abbreviated Form" section in 
the RFC 
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#abbreviated_form) which 
I disagree with, which apparently was added in October, but I remember 
an email letting readers know of the updated RFC. I didn't follow the 
evolution of the RFC too closely, though, because I believed that it 
still was in a somewhat early stage and because discussion is already 
split into way-to-many threads and also the poll.


Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Rowan Tommins]

On 20/11/2022 13:20, Dan Ackroyd wrote:

This is getting quite complicated.

I think unless someone makes a strong case for allowing the
combination of the two, disallowing them being combined is probably
the best choice.



I'm inclined to agree. There's going to be a lot to understand and agree 
on this RFC as it is, so if some edge cases can reasonably be defined as 
forbidden, we're less likely to end up regretting some detail.


Then if a good use case is identified, there can be a follow-up RFC, 
either within this release cycle, or in a future release.


Regards,

--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Dan Ackroyd]

Hi Larry,

Regarding the syntax, up until now PHP has only supported the letters
a-z and underscore in keywords.

I realise this is an aesthetic thing, but "private(set)" looks like a
function to me, and not a keyword. I saw the previous poll, and it
didn't include options for either protected_set/private_set or
protectedset/privateset.

Was there a technical reason for excluding them as an option?

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 20:09, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>
> That creates an odd situation where readonly and asymmetric visibility
> may only be combined "sometimes."...
>
> 2. Disallow readonly and asymmetric visibility being combined, because
> readonly already has a hard-coded implied asymmetric visibility.

This is getting quite complicated.

I think unless someone makes a strong case for allowing the
combination of the two, disallowing them being combined is probably
the best choice.

cheers
Dan
Ack

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Derick Rethans]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Ilija Tovilo wrote:

> Hi Derick
> 
> > > As I understand it, you’re suggesting that a property declared as
> > > `public protected(set)` would never trigger __set().
> >
> > I would think that that would be against our current practice, which is
> > easy enough to explain as "if the property isn't visible set,
> > then use __set()". I would argue that "protected(set)" marks a property
> > as invisible from a non-inherited class/method, and hence __set should
> > be called.
> 
> What you're describing does not match the readonly behavior.
> https://3v4l.org/X76pV
> 
> Readonly properties only call __set once they are explicitly unset.
> The same applies to __unset. I changed this in the asymmetric
> visibility implementation recently to match this behavior but the RFC
> has not been adjusted to reflect this yet.
> 
> AFAIK this behavior is there to allow calls to __set for certain edge
> cases. While not very intuitive it makes sense to stay consistent. If
> this behavior is undesirable we should change it in both places.

Now I have re-read the Assymetric Visibility RFC's "Interaction with 
__set" 
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility#interaction_with_set), 
I'm slightly more confused. Could you update that section, as what it 
currently states seems reasonable.

cheers,
Derick

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Claude Pache]

>> 
>> 1. Relax the set-is-tighter restriction.  That would allow `protected 
>> protected(set)` etc. on any property.  It wouldn't be particularly useful 
>> unless readonly is being used, but it would be syntactically legal and 
>> behave as you'd expect.  We could still disallow "set is more permissive" 
>> combinations (eg, `private public(set)`), as those have no apparent use case.
> 
> I think that Option 1 is the most reasonable. The meaning of `public 
> public(set)` and `protected protected(set)` is straightforward; from a user 
> point-of-view, disallowing them seems more like “it is useless” than “it is 
> confusing”. Unless there are good technical reason to restrict it, we can 
> just leave to linting tools the care of reporting it.
> 
> —Claude
> 

To clarify my position:

* The set visibility must be either more restrictive or of the same restriction 
level than the get visibility.

* When the set visibility is absent, it is inferred as following:
 * If `readonly` is present, the set visibility is `private` (as of today);
 * otherwise, the set visibility is the same as the get visibility (again, 
as of today).

* We don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `protected protected(set) 
string $foo;` when you could just write `protected string $foo` for the same 
effect. Similarly, we don’t judge whether it is reasonable to write `public 
function()` when you could just write `function()` for the same effect. We 
leave it to coding styles and linters to decide whether the short form or the 
long form is preferred.

—Claude

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Larry Garfield]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022, at 4:08 PM, Deleu wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is untrue.  You can declare a private property identically in a
>> parent and child class, even readonly.  I'm doing this now in a project.
>> It works, but would be unnecessary if the parent's property were
>> protected(set).
>>
>> --Larry Garfield
>>
>
> I do understand the slight complexity here (perhaps stronger in terms of
> implementation), but my assumption was that if a property is private and
> "the set visibility must be tighter", PHP would never assume `private
> protected(set) readonly`. In other words, if `private readonly` then
> `private private(set) readonly`, therefore nothing changes. You can keep
> the use of disjointed variables in inheritance provided they're all
> private. The only concern is when a property is declared protected, which
> then evaluates to what I mentioned on the previous email.

I don't follow.  Right now, this is legal:

class P {
  protected readonly string $foo;

  public useFoo() {
if ($this->foo == 'beep') { ... }
  }
}

class C extends P {
  protected readonly string $foo;

  public function __construct(string $foo) {
$this->foo = $foo;
  }
}

The redeclaration of $foo is necessary because of the implicit private-set on 
readonly today.  I have code that does this.

If we go with options 1 or 4, then that could be simplified to:

class P {
  protected protected(set) readonly string $foo;

  public useFoo() {
if ($this->foo == 'beep') { ... }
  }
}

class C extends P {
  public function __construct(string $foo) {
$this->foo = $foo;
  }
}

This would not require "set is wider", just "set is the same".

If we changed readonly to be an implicit protected(set) instead of 
private(set), that would also resolve that use case but I do not know if that 
would cause other problems with code like the above.

> I'm also under the stated assumption that `public public(set) readonly` is
> not something needed to be supported.

I am not aware of any use cases for it, though if it technically becomes 
possible as a side effect of other changes I don't object.

--Larry Garfield

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Ilija Tovilo]

Hi Derick

> > As I understand it, you’re suggesting that a property declared as
> > `public protected(set)` would never trigger __set().
>
> I would think that that would be against our current practice, which is
> easy enough to explain as "if the property isn't visible set,
> then use __set()". I would argue that "protected(set)" marks a property
> as invisible from a non-inherited class/method, and hence __set should
> be called.

What you're describing does not match the readonly behavior.
https://3v4l.org/X76pV

Readonly properties only call __set once they are explicitly unset.
The same applies to __unset. I changed this in the asymmetric
visibility implementation recently to match this behavior but the RFC
has not been adjusted to reflect this yet.

AFAIK this behavior is there to allow calls to __set for certain edge
cases. While not very intuitive it makes sense to stay consistent. If
this behavior is undesirable we should change it in both places.

Ilija

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Derick Rethans]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Stephen Reay wrote:

> As I understand it, you’re suggesting that a property declared as 
> `public protected(set)` would never trigger __set().

I would think that that would be against our current practice, which is 
easy enough to explain as "if the property isn't visible set, 
then use __set()". I would argue that "protected(set)" marks a property 
as invisible from a non-inherited class/method, and hence __set should 
be called.

cheers,
Derick

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, with readonly

[Derick Rethans]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Larry Garfield wrote:

> There's two design decisions we've made at this point, both of which 
> we think are logical and reasonable:
> 
> 1. If specified, the set visibility must be tighter than the get 
> visibility.  So `protected protected(set)` and `protected public(set)` 
> are not permitted, for instance.
> 
> 2. `readonly` is a "write once" flag that may be combined with 
> asymmetric visibility.  If no set visibility is specified, `readoly` 
> implies `private(set)`, but a different set visibility may also be 
> provided.
> 
> These are both reasonable rules.  However, it creates a conflict.  
> Specifically, in the following cases:
> 
> public public(set) readonly string $foo
> 
> protected protected(set) readonly string $foo

Just to see if I understand this correctly, the "protected(set)" 
overwrites the implicit "private(set)" that "readonly" confers?

I think that alone is confusing.

> These would be the only way to have a non-private-set readonly 
> property.  While the first is in practice quite unlikely, the second 
> has valid use cases.  (In particular, a base class that provides 
> properties expected to be set by a child constructor, and then used by 
> a method in the parent class.)  However, it would not be allowed under 
> the rules above.  Working around it would require specifying `public 
> protected(set) readonly...`, which means exposing a property that 
> likely should not be exposed.
> 
> That creates an odd situation where readonly and asymmetric visibility 
> may only be combined "sometimes."  That is not deesireable.  The only 
> way to combine them in their current form is to allow `protected 
> protected(set)` only if readonly is in use, which is excessively 
> complicated both to implement and to explain/document/use.
> 
> We see two possible ways to resolve this conflict:
> 
> 1. Relax the set-is-tighter restriction.  That would allow `protected 
> protected(set)` etc. on any property.  It wouldn't be particularly 
> useful unless readonly is being used, but it would be syntactically 
> legal and behave as you'd expect.  We could still disallow "set is 
> more permissive" combinations (eg, `private public(set)`), as those 
> have no apparent use case.
> 
> 2. Disallow readonly and asymmetric visibility being combined, because 
> readonly already has a hard-coded implied asymmetric visibility.  
> This option removes some potential use cases (they would most likely 
> drop the readonly), but has the upside that it's easier to re-allow at 
> some point in the future.

I am in favour of this option 2. As I already think "protected 
protected(set) readonly" is a confusing thing to see. If I hadn't read 
this email, I wouldn't have understood the interacting between the 
"protected(set)" and "readonly".

cheers,
Derick

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php