Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108714
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xVYFkgyW88332ei8coMOijuynHXg3A2dL50XU4HP5Vpyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLTsK2h_Yeo1vMju867hhmzyHt+GwoGStcQtiYMi2VB1tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c9RKf5PUQY0XHf=8QVVMw8jiJ=7eWfY5TTANEYt-a-ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9RKf5PUQY0XHf=8QVVMw8jiJ=7eWfY5TTANEYt-a-ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:41:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xV-4EAdzOrru5DbxFPJCkYDC5-vLs5Rmm0G94jKeKusPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076d764059f162d45"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--00000000000076d764059f162d45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> Of course, that does leave the question of how often you need one or the
> other. Maybe just the asymmetric visibility is sufficient for most
> practical purposes, in which case it may not be worthwhile to introduce
> readonly properties as a separate feature.
>

The examples shown in my previous email are indeed not very practical, but
still, I would say that the added protection against possible misuse or
accidental modifications (coming from either inside or outside) would be
useful.

Maybe it would make more sense to forbid readonly properties with default
> values?
>

As I mentioned in my response to Larry, my point of view is that default
values should be allowed. If there is a big opposition against this, I'm
open for a change though.


> Regarding the keyword choice, I think you can drop "sealed" from the list=
,
> as it is an established term that affects inheritance, not mutability. Of
> the choices you present, "immutable", "readonly" and "writeonce" seem lik=
e
> the most viable candidates.
>

Thank you for the suggestions! Sure, we can drop "sealed", and I'm ok to
add "immutable" and "readonly" to the list of voting choices. I'll also
extend the evaluations with your thoughts.

Regard,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--00000000000076d764059f162d45--