You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From the currently published PSR-PER (and not changed in master):
4.3 Properties and Constants¶
Visibility MUST be declared on all properties.
For the purpose of automated tooling and keeping aviz in mind, should the above be interpreted to mean "the get/read visibility must always be explicitly declared, independently of a potentially declared write visibility" ? Or should it be interpreted to mean "as long as there is any visibility declared, be it aviz or non-aviz, this rule is satisfied" ?
Edit: just for the record - I presume the latter is the case based on #99, but just want to make sure
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Good catch. I agree, it should be understood as "at least some kind of visibility is specified." Implicit public-read when specifying public(set) is a nice feature, and we don't want to forbid it. 😄 I'll see if I can clarify the language.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Related to #98 and #99
From the currently published PSR-PER (and not changed in
master
):For the purpose of automated tooling and keeping aviz in mind, should the above be interpreted to mean "the get/read visibility must always be explicitly declared, independently of a potentially declared write visibility" ? Or should it be interpreted to mean "as long as there is any visibility declared, be it aviz or non-aviz, this rule is satisfied" ?
Edit: just for the record - I presume the latter is the case based on #99, but just want to make sure
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: