PHP RFC: Property hooks

• Version: 1.5
• Date: 2022-12-01
• Author: Ilija Tovilo (tovilo.ilija@gmail.com), Larry Garfield (larry@garfieldtech.com)
• Status: Implemented
• First Published at: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/property-hooks
• Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13455

Developers often use methods to wrap and guard access to object properties. There are several highly common patterns for such logic, which in practice may be verbose to implement repeatedly. Alternatively, developers may use __get and __set to intercept reads and writes generically, but that is a sledge-hammer approach that intercepts all undefined (and some defined) properties unconditionally. Property hooks provide a more targeted, purpose-built tool for common property interactions.

The combination of this RFC and the Asymmetric Visibility RFC effectively replicate and replace the previous Property Accessors RFC. Much of the implementation is derived from Nikita's original work on that RFC.

The design and syntax below is most similar to Kotlin, although it also draws influence from C# and Swift. Python and JavaScript have similar features via a different syntax, although that syntax would not be viable for PHP. (See the FAQ section below for an explanation.) Ruby treats properties and methods as nearly the same, so achieves this functionality as a side effect. In short, “property accessors” are a very common feature in major, mainstream programming languages.

A primary use case for hooks is actually to not use them, but retain the ability to do so in the future, should it become necessary. In particular, developers often implement getFoo/setFoo methods on a property not because they are necessary, but because they might become necessary in a hypothetical future, and changing from a property to a method at that point becomes an API change.

By allowing most common getFoo/setFoo patterns to be attached to properties directly, such behavior can be added to a property later without an API change and without the extra boilerplate of two mostly-meaningless methods for every property, “just in case.”

Methods that are not just variations on getFoo/setFoo behavior, of course, are still valuable in their own right.

Consider the following class declaration, which might have been considered idiomatic prior to PHP 7.4:

class User 
{
    private $name;
 
    public function __construct(string $name) {
        $this->name = $name;
    }
 
    public function getName(): string {
        return $this->name;
    }
 
    public function setName(string $name): void {
        $this->name = $name;
    }
}

As of PHP 8.3, if type enforcement is the only need, that can be abbreviated all the way down to:

class User 
{
    public function __construct(public string $name) {}
}

That is much nicer, but comes at a cost: If we later want to add additional behavior (such as validation or pre-processing), there's nowhere to do so. That currently leaves two options:

1. Re-add getName() and setName() methods, making the property private or protected. This would be an API break.
2. Use __get and __set. As shown below, this is verbose, ugly, error prone, and breaks static analysis tools.

class User 
{
    private string $_name;
 
    public function __construct(string $name) {
        $this->_name = $name;
    }
 
    public function __get(string $propName): mixed {
        return match ($propName) {
            'name' => $this->_name,
            default => throw new Error("Attempt to read undefined property $propName"),
        };
    }
 
    public function __set(string $propName, $value): void {
        switch ($propName) {
            case 'name':
                if (!is_string($value)) {
                    throw new TypeError("Name must be a string");
                }
                if (strlen($value) === 0) {
                    throw new ValueError("Name must be non-empty");
                }
                $this->_name = $value;
                break;
            default:
                throw new Error("Attempt to write undefined property $propName");
        }
    }
 
    public function __isset(string $propName): bool {
        return $propName === 'name';
    }
}

Property hooks allow developers to introduce additional behavior in a way that is specific to a single property while respecting all other existing aspects of PHP and its tooling.

class User 
{
    public string $name {
        set {
            if (strlen($value) === 0) {
                throw new ValueError("Name must be non-empty");
            }
            $this->name = $value;
        }
    }
 
    public function __construct(string $name) {
        $this->name = $name;
    }
}

This code introduces a new non-empty requirement, but does not change the outward syntax of reading or writing to $name, does not hinder static analysis, and does not fold multiple properties into a single hard-to-follow method.

Similarly, using methods may also impose an extra syntax burden on callers in “read and update” situations. For example:

class Foo
{
    private int $runs = 0;
 
    public function getRuns(): int { return $this->runs; }
 
    public function setRuns(int $runs): void
    {
      if ($runs <= 0) throw new Exception();
      $this->runs = $runs;
    }
}
 
$f = new Foo();
 
$f->setRuns($f->getRuns() + 1);

With property hooks, this can be simplified to:

class Foo
{
    public int $runs = 0 {
        set {
            if ($value <= 0) throw new Exception();
            $this->runs = $value;
        }
    }
}
 
$f = new Foo();
 
$f->runs++;

Which is much more ergonomic from the user's point of view. (A incrementRuns() method would also work in this case, but would only support the one single use case of incrementing, not general read and write.)

This RFC has been designed to be as robust and feature-complete as possible. It is based on analysis of five other languages with similar functionality (Swift, C#, Kotlin, Javascript, and Python), and multiple experiments with PHP itself to find the corner cases. The RFC is, as a result, long and detailed, because we have chosen to make explicit all the necessary details presented and the reasoning behind them. Very little of this RFC could be “split off” to a future RFC (which would not be guaranteed to pass) without greatly undermining the design and capabilities of the remaining features.

A design goal of this RFC has been to make adding hooks to existing properties as transparent as possible, so that consumers of objects don't need to care if a property has hooks or not. In cases where it cannot be perfectly transparent, we have largely opted to follow the pattern of __get and __set, which already provide similar functionality in a far less robust or usable fashion. The result is to minimize the amount of thinking that developers need to do.

None of the decisions or inclusions have been arbitrary; PHP just has a lot of nooks and crannies, which this RFC has attempted to address in the least-edge-casey way possible.

In short, please don't be scared by the length or the number of moving parts. View it as a sign of polish and robustness instead.

This RFC introduces two “hooks” to override the default “get” and “set” behavior of a property. Although not included in this initial version, the design includes the ability to support more hooks in the future. (See the Future Scope section below.) Taken together, they allow for a majority of common reasons to add “just in case” methods to a property to be implemented without methods, leading to shorter code and more flexibility to improve the code without a hard API break.

There are two syntax variants supported, a full and a short, similar to closures. The example below shows both. (See the “Abbreviated Syntax” section below.)

class User implements Named
{
    private bool $isModified = false;
 
    public function __construct(private string $first, private string $last) {}
 
    public string $fullName {
        // Override the "read" action with arbitrary logic.
        get => $this->first . " " . $this->last;
 
        // Override the "write" action with arbitrary logic.
        set { 
            [$this->first, $this->last] = explode(' ', $value, 2);
            $this->isModified = true;
        }
    }
}

Additionally, as this functionality makes it natural to use a public property as part of an API, this RFC allows interfaces to declare properties and whether they should be readable, writeable, or both.

interface Named
{
    // Objects implementing this interface must have a readable
    // $fullName property.  That could be satisfied with a traditional
    // property or a property with a "get" hook.
    public string $fullName { get; }
}
 
// The "User" class above satisfies this interface, but so does:
 
class SimpleUser implements Named
{
    public function __construct(public readonly string $fullName) {}
}

Taken together, these behaviors allow for much shorter, more robust code.

This RFC applies to object properties only, not static properties. Static properties are unaffected by this RFC. It applies to both typed and untyped object properties.

For a property to use a hook, it must replace its trailing ; with a code block denoted by { }. Inside the block are one or more hook implementations, for which the order is explicitly irrelevant. It is a compile error to have an empty hook block.

Properties with hooks may not be used in multi-property declarations. Doing so will trigger a syntax error.

The get and set hooks override the PHP default read and write behavior. They may be implemented individually or together.

When a hook is called, inside that hook $this->[propertyName] will refer to the “unfiltered” value of the property, called the “backing value.” When accessed from anywhere else, $this->[propertyName] calls will go through the relevant hook. This is true for all hooks on the same property. This includes, for example, writing to a property from the get hook; that will write to the backing value, bypassing the set hook.

A normal property has a stored “backing value” that is part of the object, and part of the memory layout of the class. However, if a property has at least one hook, and none of them make use of $this->[propertyName], then no backing value will be created and there will be no data stored in the object automatically (just as if there were no property, just methods). Such properties are known as “virtual properties,” as they have no materialized stored value.

Be aware, the detection logic works on $this->[propertyName] directly at compile time, not on dynamic forms of it like $prop = 'beep'; $this->$prop. That will not trigger a backing value.

The get hook, if implemented, overrides PHP's default read behavior.

class User
{
    public function __construct(private string $first, private string $last) {}
 
    public string $fullName {
        get { 
            return $this->first . " " . $this->last;
        }
    }
}
 
$u = new User('Larry', 'Garfield');
 
// prints "Larry Garfield"
print $u->fullName;

The get hook body is an arbitrarily complex method body, which MUST return a value that is type compatible with the property.

The example above creates a virtual property, as there is at least one hook and it does not use $this->fullName. Because it is virtual, there is no default set behavior (as there's nowhere to save to). Thus, any attempt to write to the property will result in an Error being thrown.

The following example does make use of $this->[propertyName], however, and thus a backing value will be created, and write operations will simply write to the property as normal.

class Loud
{
    public string $name {
        get {
            return strtoupper($this->name);
        }
    }
}
 
$l = new Loud();
$l->name = 'larry'; // The stored value is "larry"
 
print $l->name; // prints "LARRY"

In this example, $name is a stored property, so it may be freely written to (subject to scope visibility rules, of course). Read accesses, however, will go through the provided hook body, which capitalizes the value.

The set hook, if implemented, overrides PHP's default write behavior.

class User
{
    public function __construct(private string $first, private string $last) {}
 
    public string $fullName {
        set (string $value) {
            [$this->first, $this->last] = explode(' ', $value, 2);
        }
    }
 
    public function getFirst(): string {
        return $this->first;
    }
}
 
u = new User('Larry', 'Garfield');
 
$u->fullName = 'Ilija Tovilo';
 
// prints "Ilija"
print $u->getFirst();

The set hook body is an arbitrarily complex method body, which accepts one argument. If specified, it must include both the type and parameter name.

The above example creates a virtual property. As there is no get hook, no read operation from $fullName is allowed and will throw an Error. This particular usage pattern is not common, but valid.

More commonly, a virtual property will either be get only, or symmetric:

class User
{
    public function __construct(public string $first, public string $last) {}
 
    public string $fullName {
        get {
            return "$this->first $this->last";
        }
        set (string $value) {
            [$this->first, $this->last] = explode(' ', $value, 2);
        }
    }
 
}
 
u = new User('Larry', 'Garfield');
 
$u->fullName = 'Ilija Tovilo';
 
// prints "Ilija"
print $u->first;

Alternatively, the following example creates a stored property, and thus read actions will proceed as normal.

class User {
    public string $username {
        set(string $value) {
            if (strlen($value) > 10) throw new \InvalidArgumentException('Too long');
            $this->username = strtolower($value);
        }
    }
}
 
$u = new User();
$u->username = "Crell"; // the set hook is called
print $u->username; // prints "crell", no hook is called
 
$u->username = "something_very_long"; // the set hook throws \InvalidArgumentException.

We expect this “validate on set” use case to be particularly common.

A set hook on a typed property must declare a parameter type that is the same as or contravariant (wider) from the type of the property. That allows the set body to accept a more permissive set of values. The type of the value written to the backing value and returned by get must still conform to the declared type.

A set hook on an untyped property must not specify a parameter type.

That allows, for example, behavior like this:

use Symfony\Component\String\UnicodeString;
 
class Person
{
    public UnicodeString $name {
        set(string|UnicodeString $value) {
            $this->name = $value instanceof UnicodeString ? $value : new UnicodeString($value);        
        }
    }
}

That allows both strings and UnicodeString objects to be passed in, but normalizes the value to UnicodeString to enforce a consistent and reliable type when reading it (either internally or externally).

The set hook's return type is unspecified, and will silently be treated as void.

Although it is not often used, the = assignment operator is an expression that returns a value. The value returned is already slightly inconsistent, however. In the case of typed properties, that is the value the property holds after the assignment, which may include type coercion. For a property assignment that triggers __set, there is no reasonably defined “value the property holds”, so the value returned is always the right-hand-side of the expression. The set hook has the same behavior as __set, for the same reason.

class C {
    public array $_names;
    public string $names {
        set {
            $this->_names = explode(',', $value, 2);
        }
    }
}
$c = new C();
var_dump($c->names = 'Ilija,Larry'); // 'Ilija,Larry'
var_dump($c->_names); // ['Ilija', 'Larry']

In strict type mode, that means the only case where the result of the = operator changes is when assigning an int to a float. In weak mode, there are additional cases where implicit type casting would change the type, but not the value. These same changes already happen today with __set, using the evaluated value of = is rare, and at most can change the type of the resulting value in a coercion-compatible way. For that reason we consider that an acceptable edge case.

The syntax shown above is the “full-featured” version. There are several short-hand options available as well to cover the typical cases more easily.

If the get hook is a single-expression, then the { } and return statement may be omitted and replaced with =>, just like with arrow functions. That is, the following two examples are equivalent:

class User
{
    public function __construct(private string $first, private string $last) {}
 
    public string $fullName {
        get { 
            return $this->first . " " . $this->last;
        }
    }
 
    public string $fullName {
        get => $this->first . " " . $this->last;
    }
}

If the write-type of a property is the same as its defined type (this is the common case), then the argument may be omitted entirely. That is, the following two examples are equivalent:

public string $fullName {
    set (string $value) {
        [$this->first, $this->last] = explode(' ', $value, 2);
    }
}
 
public string $fullName {
    set {
        [$this->first, $this->last] = explode(' ', $value, 2);
    }
}

If the parameter is not specified, it defaults to $value. (This is the same variable name used by Kotlin and C#.)

The set hook may also be shortened to a single expression using =>. In this case, the value the expression evaluates to will be assigned to the backing property. That is, the following two examples are equivalent:

class User {
    public string $username {
        set(string $value) {
            $this->username = strtolower($value);
        }
    }
 
 
    public string $username {
        set => strtolower($value);
    }
}

Note that, by implication, the short-set syntax implies a backing property. It is therefore incompatible with virtual properties. Using this syntax will always result in a backing property being defined.

All hooks operate in the scope of the object being modified. That means they have access to all public, private, or protected methods of the object, as well as any public, private, or protected properties, including properties that may have their own property hooks. Accessing another property from within a hook does not bypass the hooks defined on that property.

The most notable implication of this is that non-trivial hooks may sub-call to an arbitrarily complex method if they wish. For example:

class Person {
    public string $phone {
        set => $this->sanitizePhone($value);
    }
 
    private function sanitizePhone(string $value): string {
        $value = ltrim($value, '+');
        $value = ltrim($value, '1');
 
        if (!preg_match('/\d\d\d\-\d\d\d\-\d\d\d\d/', $value)) {
            throw new \InvalidArgumentException();
        }
        return $value;
    }
}

If a hook calls a method that in turn tries to read or write from the property again, that would normally result in an infinite loop. To prevent that, accessing the backing value of a property from a method called from a hook on that property will throw an Error. That is somewhat different than the existing behavior of __get and __set, where such sub-called methods would bypass the magic methods. However, as valid use cases for such circular logic are difficult to identify and there is added risk of confusion with dynamic properties, we have elected to simply block that access entirely.

Because the presence of hooks intercept the read and write process for properties, they cause issues when acquiring a reference to a property or with indirect modification (such as $this->arrayProp['key'] = 'value';).

That is because any attempted modification of the value by reference would bypass a set hook, if one is defined. For that reason, the presence of a set hook must necessarily also disallow acquiring a reference to a property or indirect modification on a property. For the vast majority of properties this causes no issue, as reading or writing to properties by reference is extremely rare.

class Foo
{
    public string $bar;
 
    public string $baz {
        get => $this->baz;
        set => strtoupper($value);
    }
}
 
$x = 'beep';
 
$foo = new Foo();
// This is fine; as $bar is a normal property.
$foo->bar = &$x;
 
// This will error, as $baz is a 
// set-hooked property and so references are not allowed.
$foo->baz = &$x;

If there is no set hook, however, there is nothing to bypass, so obtaining a reference via get is not inherently problematic. Returning by reference for a get-only property is therefore allowed. To do so, prefix the hook name with &:

class Foo
{
    public string $baz {
        &get {
          if ((!isset($this->baz)) {
            $this->baz = $this->computeBaz();
          }
          return $this->baz;
        }
    }
}
 
$foo = new Foo();
 
// This triggers the get hook, which lazily computes and caches the string.
// It then returns it by reference.
print $foo->baz;
 
// This obtains a reference to the baz property.
$temp =& $foo->baz;
 
// $foo->baz is updated to "update".
$temp = 'update';

A caller may only obtain a reference to a property that has declared &get. Attempting to get a reference on a get property will trigger an error.

The get and &get operations need to be separated to allow hooked properties to “opt-in” to sharing the underlying reference and allowing “spooky action at a distance” (by modifying the property through the reference). A get hook is protected from that leak automatically. If the property does use &get, it implies the class author is aware of that exposure situation and sees it as a feature, not a bug.

Implementing both get and &get simultaneously is a compile error.

There is one exception to the above: if a property is virtual, then there is no possible connection between the reference returned from &get and the property's backing value (given it doesn't have any). This makes it no different from a set of &getProp() + setProp() accessor methods that allow a reference to the underlying property to leak. We leave this possibility open as an opt-in way to achieve a higher degree of backwards compatibility, may it be needed, with the caveat that the class may not being aware of every change that may happen to the property.

class Foo
{
    private string $_baz;
 
    public string $baz {
        &get => $this->_baz;
        set {
            $this->_baz = strtoupper($value);
        }
    }
}
 
$foo = new Foo();
 
// This invokes "set", and sets $_baz to "BEEP".
$foo->baz = 'beep';
 
// This assigns $x to be a reference directly to $_baz
$x =& $foo->baz;
 
// This assigns "boop" to $_baz, bypassing the set hook.
$x = 'boop';

Setting by reference, however, is not supported. It may be possible to add in the future, but its complexity is too large to handle here. See the “Assignment by Reference” section under Future Scope for more details.

This behavior mirrors how the magic methods __get() and __set() handle references. (They are, in a sense, generic virtual properties.)

To summarize:

• Backed properties
  • get - Legal, may not assign by reference.
  • get/set - Legal, may not assign by reference.
  • &get - Legal, may assign by reference.
  • &get/set - Illegal, compile error.
  • set - Legal, may not assign by reference
• Virtual properties
  • get - Legal, may not assign by reference.
  • get/set - Legal, may not assign by reference.
  • &get - Legal, may assign by reference.
  • &get/set - Legal, may assign by reference.
  • set - Legal, but not particularly useful.

Be aware that a &get hook may return a value by reference that does not correspond to a property of the object. This is true for both backed and virtual properties. In that case, writing to the returned value may not have the expected effect.

class C {
    public string $a { 
        &get { 
            $b = $this->a;
            return $b;
        }
}
$c = new C();
$c->a = 'beep';
// $c is unchanged.

This concern is the same as for a &getA() method, however, so it is not an edge case limited to hooks.

Additionally, iterating an object's properties by reference will throw an error if it encounters a property that has a hook defined. (It will not error until it reaches that property.)

foreach ($someObjectWithHooks as $key => $value) {
    // Iterates all in-scope properties, using the 'get' operation if defined. 
}
 
foreach ($someObjectWithHooks as $key => &$value) {
    // Throws an error if any in-scope property has a hook.
}

There is an additional caveat regarding arrays. Modifications to arrays stored in properties may happen “in-place”, meaning without causing a copy of the array. However, there's no way to achieve this behavior with by-value getter and setter methods.

class Test {
    public $array = [];
 
    public function getArray() {
        echo "getArray()\n";
        return $this->array;
    }
 
    public function setArray($array) {
        echo "setArray()\n";
        $this->array = $array;
    }
}
 
$test = new Test();
 
// This is what we actually want. The array is modified directly, without any performance overhead.
$test->array[] = 'foo';
 
// getArray() returns a temporary value, modifying it has no effect. This approach does not work.
$test->getArray()[] = 'foo';
 
// Storing the value from getArray() in a temporary variable, modifying it and assigning it back
// works as expected.  However, there's an implicit copy on line 2, because the array is referenced
// from both $array and $test->array. The array is copied, just for the copy to immediately
// overwrite the original value.
$array = $test->getArray();
$array[] = 'foo';
$test->setArray($array);

The obvious solution to this is to return from getArray by reference.

class Test {
    // ...
    public function &getArray() {
        echo "getArray()\n";
        return $this->array;
    }
    // ...
}
 
// Now it works!
$test->getArray()[] = 'foo';

However, this comes a significant issue: setArray expects to observe changes to $array, but to no avail. An in-place array modification consists of calling &getArray and modifying the array stored in the reference. At no point is setArray invoked.

These problems exist in the exact same way for hooks.

class Test {
    public $array {
        &get {
            echo "getArray()\n";
            return $this->array;
        }
        set {
            echo "setArray()\n";
            $this->array = $value;
        }
    }
}
 
$test = new Test();
// Appending to an array invokes &get and modifies 
// the array stored in the returned reference, bypassing
// the set hook entirely.
$test->array[] = 'foo';

Two mitigations immediately come to mind, but they each come with significant limitations.

1. We may introduce various hooks for array modification. For example, $test->array[] = 'foo' may invoke an offsetAppend hook. unset($test->array['foo']) may call an offsetUnset hook, etc. However, a complete solution is impossible. Imagine sort($test->array), along with all the other functions that modify the array by-reference. They can make arbitrary changes to the array, which are not directly translatable to a hook.
2. We may create an implicit copy to the array, and silently pass it back to set. This comes with the aforementioned performance issue. Moreover, assuming a large array is passed to set containing validation, the set hook is burdened with the task of figuring out what in the array has changed, or rechecking it in full.

Neither of these approaches are satisfactory. Because all API solutions that come to mind are bad, it is the opinion of the authors that for arrays, dedicated mutator methods with a narrow contract are always the superior API choice.

class Test {
    private $_array;
    public $array {
        get => $this->_array;
    }
 
    public function addElement($value) {
        // We can validate $value, without re-validating the entire array.
        $this->_array[] = $value;
    }
}
 
$test = new Test();
$test->addElement('foo');

With Asymmetric Visibility that was previously proposed, the example can be further simplified.

// This example not provided by this RFC.
// It's just to show how asymmetric visibility would solve this use case better.
class Test {
    public private(set) $array;
 
    public function addElement($value) {
        $this->array[] = $value;
    }
}

It would also be possible to make addElement() private/protected, in order to simulate private-write, public-read properties.

For these reasons, we have disallowed intrinsically-reference array operations ([] and writing to ['foo']) on array properties when a set hook is present.

Here is a exhaustive list of possible hook combinations and their supported operations.

To summarize:

† A set-only virtual property is allowed, but probably not useful in practice.

Of note, &get-only allows for lazy-initialization of backed properties that still behave “normally” as far as index writing goes. For example, a lazy-initialized array that is then “fully public” thereafter:

class C
{
    public array $list {
        &get {
          $this->list ??= $this->defaultListValue();
          return $this->list;
        }
    }
 
    private function defaultListValue() {
        return ['a', 'b', 'c'];
    }
}
 
$c = new C();
 
print $c->list[1]; // prints b
 
// This calls the &get hook, which returns a reference
// to the backing value.  Then this code modifies that reference
// to append a value.  This is allowed, as there is no set hook.
$c->list[] = 'd';
 
print count($c->list); // prints 4

The array-offset rules are enforced at runtime, as we cannot reliably tell at compile time what the type and hooks of the property will be. (It may be defined in a different file.)

Default values are supported on properties that have a backing store. Default values are not supported on virtual properties, as there is no natural value for the default to be assigned to, and will be treated as a compile-time error.

Of note, the default value is assigned directly, and not passed through the set hook. All subsequent writes will go through the set hook. This is primarily to avoid confusion or questions about when, exactly, the set hook should run during object initialization, and is consistent with how Kotlin handles it as well.

Default values are listed before the hook block.

class User
{
    public string $role = 'anonymous' {
        set => strlen($value) <= 10 ? $value : throw new \Exception('Too long');
    }
}

A child class may define or redefine individual hooks on a property by redefining the property and just the hooks it wishes to override. The type and visibility of the property are subject to their own rules independently of this RFC.

A child class may also add hooks to a property that had none.

class Point
{
    public int $x;
    public int $y;
}
 
class PositivePoint extends Point
{
    public int $x {
        set {
            if ($value < 0) {
                throw new \InvalidArgumentException('Too small');
            }
            $this->x = $value;
        }
    }
}

Each hook overrides parent implementations independently of each other.

If a child class adds hooks, any default value set on the property is removed. That is consistent with how inheritance works already; if a property is redeclared in a child, its default is removed or must be re-assigned.

A hook in a child class may access the parent class's property using the parent::$prop keyword, followed by the desired hook. For example, parent::$propName::get(). It may be read as “access the $prop defined on the parent class, and then run its get operation” (or set operation, as appropriate).

If not accessed this way, the parent class's hook is ignored. This behavior is consistent with how all methods work. This also offers a way to access the parent class's storage, if any. If there is no hook on the parent property, its default get/set behavior will be used.

That is, the above example could be rewritten:

class Point
{
    public int $x;
    public int $y;
}
 
class PositivePoint extends Point
{
    public int $x {
        set($x) {
            if ($x < 0) {
                throw new \InvalidArgumentException('Too small');
            }
            parent::$x::set($x);
        }
    }
}

An example of overriding only a get hook could be:

class Strings
{
    public string $val;
}
 
class CaseFoldingStrings extends Strings
{
    public bool $uppercase = true;
 
    public string $val {
        get => $this->uppercase 
            ? strtoupper(parent::$val::get()) 
            : strtolower(parent::$val::get());
    }
}

As only a get hook is specified, and the parent is a plain property (and thus “backed”), setting the property will still happen normally. Hooks may not access any other hook except their own parent on their own property.

See the FAQ section below for a discussion of why this syntax was chosen.

Hooks may also be declared final, in which case they may not be overridden.

class User 
{
    public string $username {
        final set => strtolower($value);
    }
}
 
class Manager extends User
{
    public string $username {
        // This is allowed
        get => strtoupper($this->username);
 
        // But this is NOT allowed, because set is final in the parent.
        set => strtoupper($value);
    }
}

A property may also be declared final. A final property may not be redeclared by a child class in any way, which precludes altering hooks or widening its access.

Declaring hooks final on a property that is declared final is redundant, and will be silently ignored. This is the same behavior as final methods.

class User 
{
    // Child classes may not add hooks of any kind to this property.
    public final string $name;
 
    // Child classes may not add any hooks or override set,
    // but this set will still apply.
    public final string $username {
        set => strtolower($value);
    }
}

A key goal for property hooks is to obviate the need for getter/setter methods in the majority case. While straightforward for classes, many value objects also conform to an interface. That interface, therefore, also needs to be able to specify what properties it includes.

This RFC therefore also adds the ability for interfaces to declare public properties, asymmetrically. An implementing class may provide the property via a normal property or hooks. Either one is sufficient to satisfy the interface.

interface I
{
    // An implementing class MUST have a publicly-readable property,
    // but whether or not it's publicly settable is unrestricted.
    public string $readable { get; }
 
    // An implementing class MUST have a publicly-writeable property,
    // but whether or not it's publicly readable is unrestricted.
    public string $writeable { set; }
 
    // An implementing class MUST have a property that is both publicly
    // readable and publicly writeable.
    public string $both { get; set; }
}
 
// This class implements all three properties as traditional, un-hooked
// properties. That's entirely valid.
class C1 implements I
{
    public string $readable;
 
    public string $writeable;
 
    public string $both;
}
 
// This class implements all three properties using just the hooks
// that are requested.  This is also entirely valid.
class C2 implements I
{
    private string $written = '';
    private string $all = '';
 
    // Uses only a get hook to create a virtual property.
    // This satisfies the "public get" requirement. It is not
    // writeable, but that is not required by the interface.
    public string $readable { get => strtoupper($this->writeable); }
 
    // The interface only requires the property be settable,
    // but also including get operations is entirely valid.
    // This example creates a virtual property, which is fine.
    public string $writeable {
        get => $this->written;
        set => $value;
    }
 
    // This property requires both read and write be possible,
    // so we need to either implement both, or allow it to have
    // the default behavior.
    public string $both {
        get => $this->all;
        set => strtoupper($value);
    }
}

Interfaces are only concerned with public access, so the presence of non-public properties is both unaffected by an interface and cannot satisfy an interface. This is the same relationship as for methods. The public keyword on the property is required for syntax consistency (or its rarely-used alias, var).

A get hook in an interface may be satisfied by either a get or &get hook in a class. An interface may alternatively specify a &get hook in its definition, in which case an implementing class must also use a &get hook. This behavior is identical to how methods in interfaces already work.

We have deliberately chosen to not support public string $foo in interfaces, without specifying the required hooks. That is because the most common use case would be a get-only property, but it's unclear if undefined hooks should mean “get only” or “get and set”. It may also imply that the property may be referenced, which may not be the case depending on the implementing class. To avoid ambiguity, the expected operations must be specified explicitly.

Of note, an interface property that only requires get may be satisfied by a public readonly property, as the restrictions of readonly only apply on write. However, an interface property that requires set is incompatible with a readonly property, as public-write would be disallowed.

At this time, it is not possible to specify a covariant (wider) write-type in the interface the way a hook implementation can. That is mainly to reduce moving parts and complexity. In concept, it could be cleanly added without a BC break in the future if desired.

An abstract class may declare an abstract property, for all the same reasons as an interface. However, abstract properties may also be declared protected, just as with abstract methods. In that case, it may be satisfied by a property that is readable/writeable from either protected or public scope. Abstract private properties are not allowed and will result in a compile-time error, just as with methods.

abstract class A
{
    // Extending classes must have a publicly-gettable property.
    abstract public string $readable { get; }
 
    // Extending classes must have a protected- or public-writeable property.
    abstract protected string $writeable { set; }
 
    // Extending classes must have a protected or public symmetric property.
    abstract protected string $both { get; set; }   
}
 
class C extends A
{
    // This satisfies the requirement and also makes it settable, which is valid.
    public string $readable;
 
    // This would NOT satisfy the requirement, as it is not publicly readable.
    protected string $readable;
 
    // This satisfies the requirement exactly, so is sufficient. It may only
    // be written to, and only from protected scope.    
    protected string $writeable {
        set => $value;
    }
 
    // This expands the visibility from protected to public, which is fine.
    public string $both;
}

An abstract property on an abstract class may provide implementations for any hook, but must have either get or set declared but not defined (as in the example above). A property on an interface may not implement any hooks.

abstract class A
{
    // This provides a default (but overridable) set implementation, and requires 
    // child classes to provide a get implementation.
    abstract public string $foo { 
        get;
        set { $this->foo = $value; }
    }
}

As with interfaces, omitting a hook indicates no requirement for it, and specifying neither hook is not supported, for all the same reasons as interfaces.

As with interfaces, a get-only abstract property may be satisfied by a readonly property. A set-requiring abstract property is incompatible with readonly.

Normal properties are neither covariant nor contravariant; their type may not change in a subclass. The reason for that is “get” operations MUST be covariant, and “set” operations MUST be contravariant. The only way for a property to satisfy both requirements is to be invariant.

With abstract properties (on an interface or abstract class) or virtual properties, it is possible to declare a property that has only a get or set operation. As a result, abstract properties or virtual properties that have only a get operation required MAY be covariant. Similarly, an abstract property or virtual property that has only a set operation required MAY be contravariant.

Once a property has both a get and set operation, however, it is no longer covariant or contravariant for further extension. That is, it is now invariant (as all properties are in 8.3 and earlier).

class Animal {}
class Dog extends Animal {}
class Poodle extends Dog {}
 
interface PetOwner 
{
    // Only a get operation is required, so this may be covariant.
    public Animal $pet { get; }
}
 
class DogOwner implements PetOwner 
{
    // This may be a more restrictive type since the "get" side
    // still returns an Animal.  However, as a native property
    // children of this class may not change the type anymore.
    public Dog $pet;
}
 
class PoodleOwner extends DogOwner 
{
    // This is NOT ALLOWED, because DogOwner::$pet has both
    // get and set operations defined and required.
    public Poodle $pet;
}

Within a property hook, the special constant __PROPERTY__ is automatically defined. Its value will be set to the name of the property. This is mainly useful for repeating self-referential code. See the “cached derived property” example linked below for a complete use case.

Properties in traits may declare hooks, just like any other property. However, as with normal properties, there is no conflict resolution mechanism provided the way methods have. If a trait and a class where it is used both declare the same property with hooks, an error is issued.

We anticipate that being a very rare edge case, and thus no additional resolution machinery is necessary.

readonly properties work by checking if the backing store value is uninitialized. A virtual property has no backing store value to check. While technically an inherited readonly property would allow accessing its parent's stored value, in practice it would be non-obvious when readonly works on properties with hooks. Moreover, providing a get hook on an overridden property would further complicate the notion of a “initialized” value.

For that reason, a readonly property with a get or set hook is disallowed and will throw a compile error. That also means that a child class may not redeclare and add hooks to a readonly property, either.

PHP 8.3 will invoke the __get(), __set(), __isset(), and __unset() magic methods if a property is accessed and it is either not defined, OR it is defined but not visible from the calling scope. The presence of hooks on a defined property does not change that behavior. Naturally the property will be defined if it has hooks; however, if the property is not visible in the calling scope then the appropriate magic method will be called just as if there were no hooks.

Within the magic methods, the property will be visible and therefore accessible. Reads or writes to a hooked property will behave the same as from any other method, and thus hooks will still be invoked as normal.

class C
{
    private string $name {
        get => $this->name;
        set => ucfirst($value);
    }
 
    public function __set($var, $val)
    {
        print "In __set\n";
        $this->$var = $val;
    }
}
 
$c = new C();
 
$c->name = 'picard';
 
// prints "In __set"
// $c->name now has the value "Picard"

If a scope-visible property implements get, then isset() will invoke the get hook and return true if the value is non-null. That is, isset($o->foo), where $foo has a get hook, is equivalent to !is_null($o->foo).

In comparison, with an undefined property isset() currently checks both __isset() and __get(), and returns true only if the isset magic method is defined AND returns true AND the get magic method returns non-null. Since a property with a hook is always defined, by definition, there is no need to verify it (the equivalent logic would always return true). The net result is that the behavior is consistent with how isset() interacts with __get/__isset() today.

If a property has a backing value and there is no get hook, it will operate on the property value directly the same as if there were no hooks.

If a property is virtual and has no get hook, calling isset() will throw an Error. (This would only happen on a set-only virtual property, which we anticipate being very rare.)

If a property implements any hook, then unset() is disallowed and will result in an error. unset() is a very narrow-purpose write operation; supporting it directly would involve bypassing any set hook that is defined, which is undesireable. If in the future a compelling need can be found for it, that may justify a dedicated unset hook. (See Future Scope.)

As of PHP 8.0, properties may be declared inline with the constructor. That creates an interesting potential for complexity if the property also includes hooks, as the hooks may be arbitrarily complex, and therefore long, leading to potentially tens of lines of code technically within the constructor's method signature.

On the other hand, we expect the use of the set hook for validation (as shown in various examples here) to be fairly popular, including validation on promoted properties. Making them incompatible would undercut the value of both tremendously. (Virtual properties make little sense to make promoted.)

After much consideration, the authors have opted to allow hooks to be implemented within constructor property promotion. While pathological examples could certainly be shown, we anticipate in practice that the impact will be far less. In particular, the shorthand version of hook bodies and the ability to call out to private methods if they get complicated partially obviate the concern about syntactic complexity.

For example, we predict the following to be the extent of most combinations of hooks and promotion:

class User
{
    public function __construct(
        public string $username { set => strtolower($value); }
    ) {}
}

Which is, all things considered, pretty good for the level of power it gives.

The behavior of properties with hooks when serialized has been designed to model the behavior of non-hooked properties as closely as possible.

There are several serialization contexts to consider. Their behavior is summarized below, with explanations afterward.

• var_dump(): Use raw value
• serialize(): Use raw value
• unserialize(): Use raw value
• __serialize()/__unserialize(): Custom logic, uses get/set hook
• Array casting: Use raw value
• var_export(): Use get hook
• json_encode(): Use get hook
• JsonSerializable: Custom logic, uses get hook
• get_object_vars(): Use get hook
• get_mangled_object_vars(): Use raw value

serialize() and var_dump() are both intended to show the internal state of the object. For that reason, for backed properties they will store/display the raw value of the property, without invoking get. Virtual properties, which have no backing store of their own, will be omitted.

Similarly, unserialize() will write to a property's backing value directly, without invoking set. If the input has a value for a virtual property, an error will be thrown.

Note that if the __serialize() or __unserialize() magic methods are used, those will run like any other method and therefore read through the get hook.

When casting an object to an array ($arr = (array) $obj), currently the visibility of properties is ignored; the keys returned may have an extra prefix in them to indicate that they were private, but that's it. As this operation currently reveals internal implementation details, it also will not invoke the get hook.

get_mangled_object_vars() was intended as a long-term replacement for array casting of objects, and therefore its interaction with hooks is identical. No hook will get called.

JsonSerializable is a non-issue; its jsonSerialize method will be called as a normal method and have the same access to properties as any other method (that is, through the get hook if present), and may return whatever value it wishes.

In PHP 8.3, using json_encode() on an object that does not implement JsonSerializable will return a JSON object of key/value pairs of the public properties only, regardless of what scope it is called from. The intent is to serialize the “public face” of the object. For that reason, public properties with a get hook will be included, and the get hook invoked, regardless of whether the property is virtual or not.

get_object_vars() is also scope-aware, and thus is not supposed to have access to internal state. Functionally, it is equivalent in behavior to calling foreach over an object. Its behavior with hooks is therefore the same: any property readable in scope will be included, and a get hook called if defined, regardless of whether the property is virtual or not.

var_export() is an interesting case. Its intent is to create an export of the object's internal state, and it bypasses visibiilty control, but in a way that it may be re-hydrated entirely from user-space code in the __set_state() method. __set_state() necessarily must send any assignments through the set hook, if defined. To minimize asymmetry, therefore, we have chosen to invoke get hooks on properties for var_export().

There is a new global enum, PropertyHookType. It is string-backed to allow for easy “upcasting” of primitive values when appropriate.

enum PropertyHookType: string
{
    case Get = 'get';
    case Set = 'set';
}

ReflectionProperty has several new methods to work with hooks.

• getHooks(): array returns an array of \ReflectionMethod objects keyed by the hook they are for. So for example, a property with both get and set hook will return a 2 element array with keys get and set, each of which are a \ReflectionMethod object. The order in which they are returned is explicitly undefined. If an empty array is returned, it means there are no hooks defined.
• getHook(PropertyHookType $hook): ?\ReflectionMethod returns the corresponding \ReflectionMethod object or null if it is not defined.
• isVirtual(): bool, returns true if the property has no backing value, and false if it does. (That is, all existing properties without hooks will return false.)
• getSettableType(): ?\ReflectionType will return the type definition for the set hook, if defined. If there is no set-type specified, it will return the property type exactly as getType(), including null if the property is untyped. If the property is intrinsically unsettable (because it is virtual and has no set hook), ReflectionType(never) will be returned. (A readonly property is still settable, just once, so in that case the behavior is identical to getType().)
• getRawValue(object $object): mixed will return the raw backing value of the property, without caling a get hook. If there is no hook, it behaves identically to getValue(). If the property is virtual, it will throw an error. On a static property, this method will always throw an error.
• setRawValue(object $object, mixed $value): void will, similarly, set the raw value of a property without invoking a set hook. If there is no hook, it behaves identically to setValue(). If the property is virtual, it will throw an error. On a static property, this method will always throw an error.
• The existing getValue() method will invoke a get hook if one is defined, regardless of whether the property is virtual or not. If a property is write-only (virtual and has only a set hook defined), an error will be thrown.
• The existing setValue() method will invoke a set hook if one is defined, regardless of whether the property is virtual or not. If a property is get-only (virtual and has only a get hook defined), an error will be thrown.

There is also a \ReflectionProperty::IS_VIRTUAL constant for use in property filters.

The returned \ReflectionMethod objects will have the class the property is on as its declaring class (returned by getDeclaringClass()). Its return and parameter types will be as defined by the rules above in the hooks section. Its getName() method will return ClassName::$prop::get (or set, accordingly).

Hooks defined by a parent class's property will be included and available, the same as if they were defined on the property directly, unless overridden in the child class.

Hook implementations are internally implemented as methods. That means hooks may accept method-targeted attributes. They may be accessed via reflection in the usual way, once the \ReflectionMethod object is obtained.

#[Attribute(Attribute::TARGET_METHOD)]
class A {}
 
#[Attribute(Attribute::TARGET_METHOD)]
class B {}
 
class C {
    public $prop { 
        #[A] get {}
        #[B] set {}
    }
}
 
$getAttr = (new ReflectionProperty(C::class, 'prop'))
    ->getHook(PropertyHookType::Get)
    ->getAttributes()[0];
$aAttrib = $getAttr->getInstance();
 
// $aAttrib is an instance of A.

Hook parameters may also accept parameter-targeted attributes, as expected.

class C {
    public int $prop { 
        set(#[SensitiveParameter] int $value) {
            throw new Exception('Exception from $prop');
        }
    }
}
 
$c = new C();
$c->prop = 'secret';
// Exception: Exception from $prop in %s:%d
// Stack trace:
// #0 example.php(4): C->$prop::set(Object(SensitiveParameterValue))
// #1 {main}

Of note, the #[\Override] attribute can be applied to a hook, and it will treat the parent property's hook as its parent and behave accordingly. If the parent property is declared but has no hooks, that is considered “existing” as though it had a trivial hook on it.

Of the 5 languages we surveyed that had property accessors, C#, Swift, and Kotlin put the accessor/hook logic on the property, as is done here. Python and JavaScript have no property declaration, instead having an annotation on a method that turns it into a getter/setter. Using a JavaScript-inspired syntax, in PHP that might look like:

class Person
{
    public string $firstName;
 
    public function __construct(private string $first, private string $last) {}
 
    public function get firstName(): string
    {
        return $this->first . " " . $this->last;
    }
 
    public function set firstName(string $value): void
    {
        $this->first = $value;
    }
}

While that may seem superficially preferable, it is not workable for a number of reasons.

1. What is the property type of the $firstName property? Presumably string, but there's nothing inherent that forces, public string $firstName, get firstName()s return and set firstName()s parameter to be the same. Even if we could detect it as a compile error, it means one more thing that the developer has to keep track of and get right, in three different places. Architecture should “make invalid states impossible”, and this does not. (Python and JavaScript are both largely untyped, which is why they don't have this issue.)
2. What about visibility? Do the get/set methods need to have the same visibility as the property? If not, does that become a way to do asymmetric visibility? But then even if not, the visibility would be repeated multiple times. What about inconsistency between the method's visibility and the property visibility? How is that handled? (Python and JavaScript do not have visibility modifiers in the sense PHP does, which is why they don't have this issue.)
3. How do you differentiate between virtual and non-virtual properties? Arguably that could be where declaring the property separately has value, but as noted above that introduces a host of additional issues. Without that triple-bookkeeping, however, it's not obvious if a property is virtual or not. (Python and JavaScript both do not pre-define properties, which is why they don't have this issue.)
4. For non-virtual properties, if you need to triple-enter everything, we're back to constructors pre-promotion. Plus, the accessor methods could be anywhere in the class, potentially hundreds of lines away. That means just looking at the property declaration doesn't tell you what its logic is; the logic may be on line 960, which only makes keeping its type/visibility in sync with the property harder.

Essentially, the tagged-method approach can work well in languages without explicit typed properties, where all objects are really just dictionaries with funny syntax (Python and JavaScript). In languages with explicit typed properties, that becomes vastly more cumbersome and un-ergonomic. Of note, all three languages surveyed that have explicit typed properties (C#, Swift, and Kotlin) use on-the-property accessor definitions instead. As PHP is also a language with explicit typed properties, following suit makes logical sense.

Kotlin, Swift, and C#, all of which have a similar accessor model to that shown here, all support asymmetric visibility in addition to property hooks (by whatever name). However, they all use different syntaxes. In some but not all cases, the visibility is placed on the get or set hook.

That would cause a problem for PHP. As noted above, property hooks are incompatible with array properties. However, there is no conceptual reason for asymmetric visibility to be incompatible with array properties, and there are ample use cases for wanting to support that.

However, using the hook-bound syntax for visibility would either inherently forbid asymmetric visibility on arrays (undesirable), or necessitate more complex syntax to determine if references should or should not be disabled on a property. Both are poor options.

For that reason, any concept of asymmetric visibility has been omitted from this RFC. Should asymmetric visibility be determined a desirable feature in the future, a left-side syntax as used by Swift and as demonstrated in the original Asymmetric Visibility RFC would be a complementary addition, and the best option in practice.

The syntax for accessing a parent property through hooks was designed to minimize confusion with other syntax. It's not ideal, but has the fewest trade-offs. The seemingly-obvious alternative, using parent::$x, has several problems.

First, there's then no way to differentiate between “access parent hook” and “read the static property $x on the parent”. Arguably that's not a common case, but it is a point of confusion.

The larger issue is that parent::$x can't be just a stand-in for the backing value in all cases. While supporting that for the = operator is straightforward enough, it wouldn't give us access to ++, --, <=, and the dozen or so other operators that could conceivably apply. In theory those could all be implemented manually, but we estimate that would be “hundreds to thousands of lines of code” to do, which... is not time or code well spent. Especially as this is a very edge-case situation to begin with.

So we have the choice between making $a = parent::$prop and parent::$prop = $a work, but *nothing else*, inexplicably (creating confusion) or the slightly longer syntax of $a = parent::$prop::get() and parent::$prop::set($a) that wouldn't support those other operations anyway so there's no confusion.

We feel the current approach is the better trade off, but if the consensus generally is for the shorter-but-inconsistent syntax, that can be changed.

One change that was suggested was to require virtual properties to be marked with a virtual keyword or similar, rather than relying on auto-detecting if a property should be backed. We considered this approach, and it has its merits for explicitness, but on further investigation determined that it would not be feasiable due to inheritance.

Specifically, for implementation reasons if a child class extends a parent with a backed property and provides hooks that do not use the backing value, the class still has a masked property on it. Conversely, if a parent class has a virtual property a child class may override it and use a backing value, which will then be created. Essentially, a property is “backed” (as far as the engine is concerned) if any class in its hierarchy is backed.

That would mean, however, that the virtual keyword is unreliable, as a parent or child class could trigger different behavior. Consider:

class P {
    public virtual $prop { get => ...; set { ... } }
}
 
class C extends P {
    public virtual $prop { get => strtoupper(parent::$prop::get()); }
}

In this case, C::$prop is marked as virtual, because it technically does not read from a backing store itself. However, if P::$prop is not-virtual, that means the virtual declaration on C is technically wrong, as there is a backing value named $prop. If P::$prop changes between virtual and non, this could end up being a BC break.

While there are ways that the engine could be made to handle that scenario without crashing, the syntax would still be confusing to the user. We therefore believe that the current approach of “if $this->prop is used, it's backed” is simpler for the user in practice, less misleading, and easier for the engine.

We have collected a series of examples that show what we expect to be typical hook usage. (Or, arguably, the kind of things one could do that wouldn't require adding a method for in case you want to do them in the future.) It is non-normative, but gives a sense of how hooks can be used to improve a code base (or things that can be added later without needing to create methods “just in case”).

In the interest of brevity, we have placed the examples in an external document, available here: Usage examples

There is one subtle BC break due to accessing parent property hooks. Specifically, in this code:

class A {
    public static $prop = 'C';
}
 
class B extends A {
    public function test() {
        return parent::$prop::get();
    }
}
 
class C {
    public static function get() {
        return 'Hello from C::get';
    }
}

Currently, parent::$prop would resolve to "C", and then the C::get() method would be called.

With this RFC, *if* the method name is the same as a hook, then the above code would error out with a message about trying to access a parent hook when not in a hook. If the method is not the same name as a hook, there is no change in behavior.

The previous logic could be achieved by using a temporary variable:

class B extends A {
    public function test() {
        $class = parent::$prop;
        return $class::get();
    }
}

As the above code is very rare in the wild and rather contrived, and easily worked around, we feel this edge case is acceptable.

PHP 8.4.

PHP supports magic methods for __isset and __unset. While it is tempting to allow those as hooks as well, the authors feel their use is limited. They have therefore been omitted. However, it is possible to reintroduce them in a future RFC should valid use cases be shown.

Swift has the ability to declare hook “packages” that can be applied to multiple properties, even in separate classes. That further helps reduce boilerplate, without having to pack even more logic into the type system. In a sense, it does for hooks what PHP traits do for methods and properties. While that is potentially useful, it would be a whole big feature unto itself. The authors therefore opted to avoid that for now. It is an addition that could be pursued in the future if it's found to be useful.

In the current design, a long-form set hook, with body, is always return-void. That does make multi-statement set hooks a bit more awkward than allowing them to return the value to set, rather than assigning it explicitly to the backing property.

The root problem is that it is not curently possible to differentiate between return, return null, and “nothing returned” at runtime, from the call-side. They all get seen as null. It's then impossible to tell if that means “assign null to the backing property” or “I already handled the assignment, do nothing.”

(This issue doesn't exist for short-set, as we can safely just declare “it's always an assignment, period.”)

The proper solution for this problem is to update the engine to differentate between “null was explicitly returned” and “nothing was returned at all.” If that change were made, it would be reasonably straightforward to support optionally returning from the set hook. However, that is a deeper change with potentially other implications, so we feel it is out of scope for this RFC.

A future RFC that makes that engine change and then enables an optional return-to-set feature for set hooks is certainly possible, and the authors would support that. It would have no BC breakage for the hooks feature itself.

This RFC does not support assign-by-reference for hooked properties. That is a very rare edge case, and the current dynamic-property mechanism (__set) doesn't support it either, so it is no great loss, even though there is, technically, a very small potential for breakage if someone is trying to write to a public property of another class, and that class's author changes it to add hooks.

It may be possible to allow assign-by-ref in the future, though it would be rather involved, which is why it has been left out of this RFC. We are, however, documenting the moving parts involved for future reference.

Assigning by reference involves a couple of steps:

• If the value to be assigned (right side of a =& operation) is not already a reference, wrap it into a reference.
• Assign that (possibly newly created) reference value to the variable specified on the left side of the operator.
• The result is the left-side variable is now a reference to some pre-existing value, as are any other references that already exist (and increments refcounts as appropriate).
• If the left-side variable was previously a reference already, the previous reference is lost (and refcounts decremented as appropriate).

To support assign-by-ref, we would need to differentiate between an incoming value and incoming reference, as the presence of a set hook means we could not do the “wrap if it's not already” logic that a normal reference assignment does (as it would need to happen inside the hook body in user space). There are two options: One would be to make the parameter to set by-reference, and provide a boolean flag to indicate if the method body should save it by reference or not. This seems quite ugly and error prone.

The other would be to introduce a by-ref version of set (potentially named setref or bindref) that would get called instead, should the engine encounter $foo->hookedProperty =& $var. If no set hook is defined on a backed property (but not virtual), it MAY be possible to automate the default behavior, but that would have to be determined at that time.

Again, this is a very small edge case so we have opted to not address it now. Such a change could be made in a BC-friendly way in a future RFC.

By design, when inside a get hook, references to $this->[propertyName] will skip all hooks, including both get and set. The same applies to set hooks reading from the property. That should be sufficient for the overwhelming majority of cases. However, there may be cases where there is a use for accessing the set hook from the get hook, or vice versa. (Say, on virtual properties.)

If that is shown to be a need in practice, one straightforward way to support that would be a self::$foo::get() syntax, paralleling the syntax for accessing parent hooks. Such a syntax would allow issuing a method call to the specified hook, and would naturally expand to other hooks if they are ever added. However, that would also create opportunities to create infinite loops if the developer is not careful.

This syntax has been omitted from this RFC as we do not think it is necessary in practice, but it would be possible to add in the future without any BC breaks.

This is a simple yes-or-no vote to include this feature. 2/3 majority required to pass.

Implement property hooks as described?
Real name	Yes	No
alcaeus (alcaeus)
alec (alec)
beberlei (beberlei)
brzuchal (brzuchal)
bukka (bukka)
bwoebi (bwoebi)
colinodell (colinodell)
cpriest (cpriest)
crell (crell)
dams (dams)
davey (davey)
derick (derick)
devnexen (devnexen)
dragoonis (dragoonis)
ericmann (ericmann)
galvao (galvao)
girgias (girgias)
ilutov (ilutov)
jimw (jimw)
josh (josh)
jwage (jwage)
kalle (kalle)
kguest (kguest)
klaussilveira (klaussilveira)
levim (levim)
nicolasgrekas (nicolasgrekas)
nielsdos (nielsdos)
patrickallaert (patrickallaert)
petk (petk)
pierrick (pierrick)
ralphschindler (ralphschindler)
ramsey (ramsey)
reywob (reywob)
saki (saki)
santiagolizardo (santiagolizardo)
seld (seld)
sergey (sergey)
shivam (shivam)
sirsnyder (sirsnyder)
theodorejb (theodorejb)
thorstenr (thorstenr)
timwolla (timwolla)
trowski (trowski)
weierophinney (weierophinney)
Final result:	42	2
This poll has been closed.

https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13455

• Property Accessors
• Asymmetric Visibility
• RFC discussion thread 1
• RFC discussion thread 2