Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108862
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xVYFkgyW88332ei8coMOijuynHXg3A2dL50XU4HP5Vpyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLTsK2h_Yeo1vMju867hhmzyHt+GwoGStcQtiYMi2VB1tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9RKf5PUQY0XHf=8QVVMw8jiJ=7eWfY5TTANEYt-a-ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8545d15e-ddd5-42be-8405-09697a077234@www.fastmail.com> <CAH5C8xWgkUCAJguwnP69VqWXUaR+QtJRPMyBdv7B5vcnQjTD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4d9688fe-cc57-44af-903e-05f4cbb1bbcc@www.fastmail.com> <CALKiJKpt+xBwyEn-yVY6h_DT-c+T6nUGgye6Ocxjdcpc4fOobg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bcbf0a5-92d8-4cfa-a00f-e0e967fc037e@www.fastmail.com> <CAOWwgpm6VJAphpdkqTo21=S6xXW=6q26v=C=H=KCF=SS0h7BoA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgpm6VJAphpdkqTo21=S6xXW=6q26v=C=H=KCF=SS0h7BoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xVpHYW7woD-Fw_o2HvbDpsjGN0fE6Z+S3n0UxcTRBhySQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f08c405a0196651"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--0000000000009f08c405a0196651
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> I totally agree with this: there must be a way to work around the keyword=
 -
> either via reflection or another means.

Via Reflection, it could be a new method `->setWritable(true)` (next to
> `->setAccessible(true)`).
>

I'm OK to support working around the keyword via reflection. Since my
implementation uses a property flag to determine if a property is writable,
and the flag is flipped after writing, the ->setWritable(true) wouldn't
work. But
I can imagine adding a ->setUninitialized() method, or adding a third
parameter to ->setValue() which would affect whether the property flag
should be
first reset or not. Adding a separate ->setValue() method for this purpose
is also
possible, but I couldn't find a good name for that yet. What do you think?


> Another way, which is my current preference, would be to have visibility =
be
> taken into consideration when using the keyword:
>

To be honest, I don't agree with this idea. It is rather a simpler property
accessor
variant with which one can define separate - but predefined - visibility
rules for
reading and writing.

Furthermore, I think it's worth to protect people from their own mistakes.
I know
for sure that at least I'd need those safeguards. :) But if we are talking
about
unintended changes coming from outside scopes, and if we only consider
"legal" use-cases, private and protected properties are already pretty much
safe.
However, if we also consider possible changes coming from an inside scope,
and other, "illegal" use-cases, we currently don't have any protection. And
not
even property accessors or your idea could help here.

Given, immutability became mainstream via PSR-7 at least, I think it would
be
beneficial to add first-class support for this principle. I remember that
one of the
criticisms against the implementation of PSR-7 was that immutability is not
even
possible to achieve in PHP (apart from the fact that PSR-7 uses a mutable
resource for storing the body). Now, we could solve the first problem, but
that
requires us to stay with the proposed implementation of the RFC.

Regards,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--0000000000009f08c405a0196651--