Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110572
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJd4=YbamFA0LghzZdfLExPzgqZ3Q=snON+PGf9CkbAd442ACQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8pGNOuqmQ00SYnXXZOhWMUWuC59E_J_6j8HQxGBQzLNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8pGNOuqmQ00SYnXXZOhWMUWuC59E_J_6j8HQxGBQzLNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:19:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sKsrV0PQA+CerOpWrw01wLQZTTSByVa0A_vON4dGT1ctA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?= <mail@pmmaga.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000945d5305a8300bad"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Remove inappropriate inheritance signature
 checks on private methods
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--000000000000945d5305a8300bad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Nikita,

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:05 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:43 PM Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <mail@pmmaga.net> w=
rote:
>
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > I have opened the vote on the "Remove inappropriate inheritance signatu=
re
> > checks on private methods" RFC. Which can be found here:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/inheritance_private_methods
> >
> > The voting period will end on 2020-06-29 22:00 UTC.
> >
> > Thanks to those who participated in the discussion and provided feedbac=
k.
> >
>
> Voting no on this one, for the reason I previously mentioned on the PR:
> While the abstract and static parts of the RFC make sense, the final part
> does not (to me). Changing the behavior of private final just removes
> existing functionality, without any clear benefit that I can see. What is
> the problem that change tries to solve?


Possibly missing in the RFC, but a parent class declaring a new `private`
symbol shouldn't affect `private` API in child classes that may be
pre-existing: helps backwards compatibility.


> The original RFC could at least
> make a consistency argument, but the final form, which converts an existi=
ng
> special case into an even more convoluted special case, can not. Why is
> __construct() exempted, but __clone() for example isn't, even though
> similar considerations apply to it?
>

While `private final function __construct()` prevents child classes from
making the constructor open, or accessing it (important for abstract
types), `protected final function __clone()` achieves the same without
having to rely on the `private` visibility modifier (https://3v4l.org/psR5F=
,
for example).

It is true that cloning is then possible from within a subtype, which is
indeed a bit of a problem: https://3v4l.org/qupHR

Maybe the magic methods would indeed all need to respect `final`, and we
haven't considered all scenarios?

These considerations were part of the previous discussion on the RFC -
maybe should be added to its notes?

Greets,

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius

http://ocramius.github.com/

--000000000000945d5305a8300bad--