Re: [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors

From: Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:03:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFC] Alternative typehinting syntax for accessors
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-64695@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message 
On 1/8/13 2:56 AM, Christian Stoller wrote:

But the way 'nullable' properties are defined is not very intuitive and unclean, in my opinion. Stas has already mentioned that.
public DateTime $date = NULL; // this looks like the property is initialized with null, but it does not show that the property is 'nullable'


Much agreed. After instantiation, these shouldn't behave differently:


public     $foo = null;

public Foo $foo = null;

Sure, method signatures have special behavior based on a default value, but IMO:
1. those semantics aren't entirely intuitive to begin with
2. property initializers aren't method sigs
3. the semantics would apply only to some properties



     public DateTime? $date;


In C# the question mark after a type is a short hand for a generic Nullable type.


I like that it's an established practice of doing exactly what we're trying to do.

Could we not just make it obvious?:

public Foo|null $foo;


Steve Clay
-- 
http://www.mrclay.org/

Thread (47 messages)

« previous php.internals (#64695) next »