Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111817
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2868e0ed4e7ebc09b568471c913079516f93fd2fc95e97b0ffea192db1e04275@mahalux.com>
 <CAJd4=YYaCDTbC7SCCQTzb3_3Dhx6oO0Sbp57+h+vq6HoxQEW+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJd4=YYaCDTbC7SCCQTzb3_3Dhx6oO0Sbp57+h+vq6HoxQEW+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:41:52 -0300
Message-ID: <CAEsg9X1fb7ZEQyJyHB8cm-YD9c0u-_vnXah_99JjchPmqh4=cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?= <mail@pmmaga.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBWb8WZw63FoWVrIC0gxIxWVVQgRkVM?= <vorismi3@fel.cvut.cz>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fd0b9705ae68ea83"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Pass source object to clone like __clone($origThis)
From: david.proweb@gmail.com (David Rodrigues)

--000000000000fd0b9705ae68ea83
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't see problem to allow modify the original object, once that you are
doing it by using a new argument, and not the $this itself.

Em qui, 3 de set de 2020 08:49, Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <mail@pmmaga.net> escr=
eveu:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:41 PM Michael Vo=C5=99=C3=AD=C5=A1ek - =C4=8CVUT=
 FEL <
> vorismi3@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
>
> > do you have anything against updating PHP to pass "instance before
> > cloned" to any __clone call from php?
> >
>
> Yes, I think that allowing the original object to be modified by a clonin=
g
> operation could be the cause for a lot of confusion. If we had a proper w=
ay
> to make it read-only I wouldn't mind, but as is, it doesn't sound like a
> good idea.
>

--000000000000fd0b9705ae68ea83--