Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105778
To: Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAOwTYAsHj9BbHL_ibXC17ZOK1mk83MZEhZXGYEe_pH1ZjAXQng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02b78e6e-fa7f-8658-9883-1dee8368ba5a@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 10:28:22 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOwTYAsHj9BbHL_ibXC17ZOK1mk83MZEhZXGYEe_pH1ZjAXQng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [RFC][Accepted] weakrefs
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 08.03.2019 at 07:34, Joe Watkins wrote:

> The vote for weakrefs is closed and has been accepted.
>
> Because of feedback received very late during voting from non-voting
> contributors/community members, the implementation will be slightly
> different to that in the RFC - it was pointed out that it's more useful =
if
> there is only one weakref for every object, and it happens to simplify t=
he
> internal implementation also. The only difference is the __construct wil=
l
> be replaced with a named constructor so that we may achieve this: It wil=
l
> still have the same interface as accepted, but with a different name for
> constructor and simpler implementation.

I just noticed that the constructor is still public[1]; shouldn't it be
private instead?

[1]
<https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/5de750f41c1ee3ed834ebf4f811ba03a6cc2d=
9bc/Zend/zend_weakrefs.c#L183>

=2D-
Christoph M. Becker