Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109025
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>
 <CAH5C8xVpHYW7woD-Fw_o2HvbDpsjGN0fE6Z+S3n0UxcTRBhySQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVm5mX6tiLBnBcGTDR0XmumWxfc2q=p5a9qqtisDM-jiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xXZKvi20ST1JLPWxuo+7Hpp933_L0WnDNqX8Dum3ukRHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <700327df-45d5-47ca-8828-d7ad9c9bee2e@www.fastmail.com> <CAH5C8xWRevvdHyNx01Eg4b_qYAESniYZdkGWfdgiPO81cL4ziQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKrwur9w+AvJ-hFx28=KZcDU7+2kwuGe+B_YVtKwzAo_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sKrwur9w+AvJ-hFx28=KZcDU7+2kwuGe+B_YVtKwzAo_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:04:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xVQ-=qzLBCaq5NcU+dbzSpFEPF5Qv0n+W+uwyEdNjhzKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007893a605a0e45711"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--0000000000007893a605a0e45711
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marco,

Yes, it still allows default values.

The reason why I'm reluctant to disallow them is that this restriction
would feel a bit ad-hoc for me. I mean, I wouldn't like to add another
special rule for "write-once" properties, unless there is a strong
argument for it. Besides, as far as I know there is no precedents of
disallowing default values of similar properties in other languages,
so I feel that the feature would stay the most intuitive as it is now.

However, I'm eager to listen any objections about this. I know for one
that ProxyManager wouldn't work with "write-once" properties having
default values. But can we consider this use-case an edge case, right?
Could users circumvent the issue just by changing the default value
to an assignment in the constructor? Or would it cause a big headache
for them?

M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2020. m=C3=
=A1rc. 14., Szo,
22:53):

> Hey M=C3=A1t=C3=A9,
>
> Is the RFC still gonna allow default values (constants, at this point)?
>
> While I don't see a major problem with it, it seems a bit weird...
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 12:00 M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Larry, for your response! I share your opinion. However, I'd =
be
>> curious if there is anyone who doesn't?
>>
>> As things currently stand, I plan to start the vote on Monday with an
>> unchanged proposal (+ an extended future scope section).
>>
>> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9
>>
>

--0000000000007893a605a0e45711--