Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109070 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87358 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2020 18:02:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2020 18:02:51 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78695180566 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,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-oi1-f177.google.com (mail-oi1-f177.google.com [209.85.167.177]) (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 ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id j5so2411098oij.1 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) 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=Lbztpn49vfgcPi6GMwFWZXsE0BhIHgFpPOZU3ZTPaXs=; b=dBGjbIOjNdqfd8LFf+709DD8q37jLUDKsI1bp3MrCgux/Coed3f4U2rpS4xR2dAWrd /zIwOrwv0xW0WhIEQm21j4GTYt3WG6odpLlCnx9Yn9MBORRkv4xY1/21xlv4YzW0V48R aFlj7Qrq1E7kc9k8BtRU6erzgHxbFxWZbY2tAkuH7qcOXZtEt2uH6OInxhI2YcDSugPC GzmVfE4N54cxfiZ028HCFgOSmhHaA4PC9fHRw9tyOQ+wtg72RhY5o+RHJ10cOHc/xUOM zslolAQ2RNnbNGbc+Kvnt+RGeoCNun4hQM+olL5CSWZtURNiasNAhZrDwGQdla3DxuXU P8+w== 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=Lbztpn49vfgcPi6GMwFWZXsE0BhIHgFpPOZU3ZTPaXs=; b=S8YuM4fXUkrnTB3E44pFFa0yWKyAxBq7yTCBu9MAn/mH8zbDP7BiczgC5bXLWhwnG1 J+c7rmFFGmuHOVNf5j4MMP1LzgumESZPQi8IR+HuQJ9F/eCK1vuVlSFEKbK2YUZQlqZQ NPFunSOxu/cKYnOdfj5IvuCTzr7EPTXKSrAAgDit99+EQEab2WD+UjyCeiCgK6w8jPcv nXt+Wmot8gwp9C2kSNN0nKiIOH68llRv6tfYD2aXJXQxRBka1+9+y3jkqK2sOZ7HdN0J 7FAvXxB7pw2PRfpiIsGFLrJaIKLPfQOqaxv3hAwE5UlJlB9B8T1gtLGS6PlS6q9TloMl H8ow== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ29aXXGeaOFHmbwI83YAvFAWf2gFJZrmaXnW/JExj2pCHBx0bu+ t7w5jQHZlC6wHEId8FqhVHd7AI902F4TBNqn+A/SVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvfCclWDm0KJlQzyX/qgxqqlnSPj8OpGIsA+Bg4FKmXRT8XCxJ22qdgf2RrtZfrz3BgaUBuo9DF21HZRd/gBeQ= X-Received: by 2002:aca:1312:: with SMTP id e18mr233801oii.137.1584375915694; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:25:15 -0700 (PDT) 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> <700327df-45d5-47ca-8828-d7ad9c9bee2e@www.fastmail.com> <6f2e7718-5d78-4c57-8da9-f8dd44cc9e7b@www.fastmail.com> <421993bf-821c-4ebf-802a-be9814b30b90@www.fastmail.com> <602d1a26-4a0d-40fc-bf37-2019c6578d6e@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <602d1a26-4a0d-40fc-bf37-2019c6578d6e@www.fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:25:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: Larry Garfield Cc: php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5598d05a0fb43fa" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas) --000000000000a5598d05a0fb43fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I repeat what I wrote before but all those problems would disappear if we > > were to bind the proposal to visibility: > > https://externals.io/message/108675#108753 > > > > We could even consider splitting "read" and "write" in two separate > > keywords, each bound to visibility, isn't it? > > How would 2 separate keywords work, syntactically/visually? I can see how > it would solve a larger cluster of use cases, but I'm not sure what the > code would look like. :-) > Hum dunno, I throw the idea to fish for interest and now I can not figure out an answer to your question... :P Back to my previous suggestion on my side, which provides the core of the benefits we strive for IMHO... Nicolas --000000000000a5598d05a0fb43fa--