Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108892 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32283 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2020 23:05:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2020 23:05:34 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414F9180088 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:25:47 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-vk1-f178.google.com (mail-vk1-f178.google.com [209.85.221.178]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id e20so1208838vke.9 for ; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 13:25:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YB5sSz4WD6WOGR+1frToEBXh7JL4VDyNf1hUnCiMDJc=; b=o9AxQbO+GHUL7oTO/u59dTOHB1odzxr/eeRUZF1z2Z9mfEyzNHByiagq3eNccc5EN9 FUeFks5m1Zza+emoB5Kp+rEoG6Hy14z3HSk80Ke7RD1CP8d4M6uVhKOooVNAMN3ewRe/ AGUi/qRjsAqn9/vJoyfdWhTi/Ps4xTN/E/toAv3yt6iuSUZr/Y9IFapVrYBOHRAjk/5S W/Bg+1nTEiPiKT4Yh7b/rLORtxdKDwB6gf81OXTQ0UaqiUav50fB2j5050u1U0q0i0a1 3O30C1vY97cDaz6ALDNT7LYmAqhIo//aWIFq6IUKh5Nsw+6o/V7PQ4fyjZQTA9HLQtfS TtLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YB5sSz4WD6WOGR+1frToEBXh7JL4VDyNf1hUnCiMDJc=; b=V0ZNpKadqGr+JmMA9kG2mvVTD+lUkML4riG0WglWQkmG0yBb4C1fubpQDSl01+IOsa mGhaSq0Wd6qTN6PdUZRk1Pk+u7NY+Od6m0EFs8/38G13bnQZSMNKDPRhDZ3okaG1A2RW 72gRJFN7kTvSYdUB6vw0/P2lEArxz+lufkORtsPra2PRpprwdsbsoTq34fTc56qEOepe Sr/0d/lQk8MomlzHv9UWFiqusdwCie5oY1K6p4RhThS7CuyfSeXEUOTW/3Q8MRax6jEM xmzSdXH4PCGn81ZRwbNB2fxfn68SClBIv/5uMzqtaEfFLozxk2kopk3cBka318Fc509j KcJA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3AG8GC/PsFpgLhJLSet9OWJJEZkq1lWjGat91Eus6FmGJZt9+N MqvnqYIb17DA8hNgaXlyuPMn59J3jrPpzYk0LIc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsbuk4YK5C5UGbsdn47cCMSG7He9A2senuZ3OyfPZp/jEAtY00qJeR4BUQVB6oVEz+LxK/imt37ETUXKezxg0I= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:b401:: with SMTP id d1mr5043258vkf.26.1583616344577; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 13:25:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8545d15e-ddd5-42be-8405-09697a077234@www.fastmail.com> <4d9688fe-cc57-44af-903e-05f4cbb1bbcc@www.fastmail.com> <6bcbf0a5-92d8-4cfa-a00f-e0e967fc037e@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 22:25:33 +0100 Message-ID: To: Nicolas Grekas Cc: php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000addbdd05a04a693d" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=) --000000000000addbdd05a04a693d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TL;DR; I plan to open the vote on Monday because the proposal feels complet= e for me. Read more to find out why I think so. Nicolas, do you have any specific use-case in mind that would require a workaround outlined in my previous email above the current possibilities (lazy initialization, unsetting before first write)? At first, I wasn't entirely sure if we really need additional reflection methods, but after a quick chat with Nikita, I'm even less so. Furthermore, it seems that ProxyManager will be able to work together with my proposal in its current form, so I fail to see what use-case would need more special treatment? Doctrine maybe? Although I am not very familiar with it, using ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor() could work around the limitations imposed by write-once properties. That said, I'd like to start the vote on Monday if no major issues emerge meanwhile, because the proposal feels complete now and I can't think of any specific use-case that would be blocked by write-once properties. Of course, if we yet find any, we can always add support for additional reflection-based workarounds later. M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 --000000000000addbdd05a04a693d--