Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109116
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xVY5SFLBt2jZ9dx93rQC_Xjp4pKZJ+MP=K1TbjyDi9CDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xVY5SFLBt2jZ9dx93rQC_Xjp4pKZJ+MP=K1TbjyDi9CDA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:23:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAKU0unH_QcZppp4AHbx5ZhUFzGOmmt448nF2aC-qVPGWX_F0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Immutable/final/readonly properties
From: internals@lists.php.net ("Levi Morrison via internals")

Chiming in to express my disappointment that `final` wasn't a voting choice.

1. It's already reserved, so we don't have to worry about a new keyword.
2. Another very popular language that is similar to PHP already uses it (Java).

I voted no for a variety of reasons, which includes:

  - It doesn't support default values, and doesn't defend that choice
well in my opinion.
  - I think clone should be able to change the value. It's similar to
a constructor, and in fact I'd call it a "copy constructor."
  - The property type is mandatory. I am less certain about this, but
do not like it.

I do appreciate the RFC, but think it needs a bit more work.