Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109081 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33721 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2020 22:17:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2020 22:17:15 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E041804E0 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:39:42 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS11403 66.111.4.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D668B5C0569 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap26 ([10.202.2.76]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:39:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Ym6jrm oc15N+iAnTXwEKjIO4gOd7NJs9i2q/SgrgZOU=; b=kCcBJVZcRk9wfLEp1g1LKc LZbgkk7HPDOTQ7Ane4bKpGM2C5eJNxxA+I7ynlXrFTMb1mUM520CMv7ELyhnZV2Q NadCIVB4ob5yTK0L02NNLI/P4qB5aRd5w3jHXjoOatV1p+9Y8E41W5Svvn6dJ3Tn uFmcLVC0TSQCeOM/TXHjY+yD9GHx+1ZimQcTivP6iCCi2Yqy82+hg+iPtplmSwtM xw+ykFofhJchblAFm2EguOxeq1rd0sxnjYFHzrlvhlrmwJCp8CmTO1EG3it0Uh1O Aju183QWylAcLgp09oBzk1o6uuh8BJxkuiIOoe/ECbXcxexlA/toegnIyEqekVyA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeffedgudefkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgr rhhrhicuifgrrhhfihgvlhgufdcuoehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhivghlughtvggthhdrtg homheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpegvgihtvghrnhgrlhhsrdhiohenucevlhhushhtvghrufhi iigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhivghlug htvggthhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4E6F714200A2; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:39:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-991-g5a577d3-fmstable-20200305v3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <63f489c2-0be5-4e8f-bfdc-ed21f7aecb68@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:39:18 -0500 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote: > > > 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 My best off-the-cuff thought would be compound name keywords. readpublic writeprotected string $foo Or something like that. Which... looks kind of ugly since I don't think we can do kebab case keywords. :-) --Larry Garfield