rfc:propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
rfc:propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax [2013/01/20 15:19] – Add patch nikicrfc:propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax [2017/09/22 13:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 2: Line 2:
   * Date: 2013-01-04   * Date: 2013-01-04
   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
-  * Status: Under Discussion+  * Status: Declined
  
 ===== Introduction ===== ===== Introduction =====
Line 102: Line 102:
  
 Note that properties are ''null'' initialized by default. The nullability semantics do not (and can not) affect this. They only specify whether it's possible to **assign** ''null'' to the property after initialization. Note that properties are ''null'' initialized by default. The nullability semantics do not (and can not) affect this. They only specify whether it's possible to **assign** ''null'' to the property after initialization.
 +
 +Default values can only be used on the shorthand notation. If accessor methods are specified a default value can not be used. The only exception is the ''= null'' default, which can still be used to specify nullability:
 +
 +<code php>
 +public DateTime $date = null {
 +    get { ... } set { ... }
 +}
 +</code>
  
 ===== Benefits of the proposed syntax ===== ===== Benefits of the proposed syntax =====
Line 150: Line 158:
  
 The patch for this proposal is available here: https://gist.github.com/4579298. You can find the individual commits here: https://github.com/nikic/php-src/commits/alternativeSyntax. The patch for this proposal is available here: https://gist.github.com/4579298. You can find the individual commits here: https://github.com/nikic/php-src/commits/alternativeSyntax.
 +
 +===== Voting =====
 +
 +This proposal depends on the main accessors RFC. The result of this vote is only relevant if the main RFC is accepted. As this is a language change it requires a 2/3 majority.
 +
 +<doodle title="Should the proposed typehinting syntax be used instead of the current one?" auth="nikic" voteType="single" closed="true">
 +   * Yes
 +   * No
 +</doodle>
 +
 +The vote ended 3 in favor, 12 against, as such this feature is declined.
rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax.1358695150.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)

Page Tools