/cc@joelwurtz@Korbeil WDYT?

On my side, I'm wondering about the perf impact of the implementation. Isn't this the same as removing the$object instanceof \stdClass check?

Please also add tests.

@nicolas-grekas it will fail when trying to access protected/private property ($access is null but we dunno why: it's a dynamic object property or class protected/private inaccessible property). The only reason why \stdClass check was written before - to be 100% sure that class property is dynamic and cannot be private/protected - inaccessible.
To improve performance I suggest havingPropertyReadInfo in any case to make a decision looking onPropertyReadInfo::$visibility. But it requires some refactoring.
BTW setValue() has the same logic. So I guess it also should support dynamic value?

Update: unit-test added. But only PropertyAccessor::getValue() is covered with getting dynamic value. setValue() - I didn't cover and as I see from unit-tests, the dynamic value cannot be set by design - at least setter method should be.
@dunglas , could you please tell (you created ReflectionExtractor), whether support of dynamic values getting/setting by ref evolutionally (and intentionally) was removed? I just want to be sure not to harm the idea of this tool.

I'm not sure about perf also, it may be slower (but need benchmark for that)

Another possible implementation would be to follow@nicolas-grekas suggestion by only removing the instanceof part and add a try catch when getting the value (to catch error if property is not accessible : protected / private), maybe it would keep perf reasonable and would also allow a better error message (like property exists but is not accessible)

@nicolas-grekas please review the last approach suggested by@joelwurtz .

Thank you@andreyserdjuk.

Reverting this PR as it breaks things by bypassing a lot of logic. One such example is when you have a class with a private property AND a __get method to access it (like TestClassMagicGet in our test suite). Before this PR, if you disable magic __get method, you will get an expected NoSuchPropertyException. But now, the property_exists() call will return true, and $object->$property will get the value because there is a __get method (which the code explicitly disallow).

Issue#37615 is again an issue since this is reverted. Any update on that?@fabpot@xabbuh@nicolas-grekas