Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112829 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4806 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2021 11:17:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2021 11:17:21 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08081804E4 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:54:47 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com (mail-wr1-f41.google.com [209.85.221.41]) (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 ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:54:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id r3so13382467wrt.2 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:54:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=r1VbOalj1GSmJT85VlpUuglH0zG3Pr6q0bhE8PTD8nE=; b=PkDWl08N0WB5XF7JKADpbEHadQrVZJpnaOC1Zmkie6Dpta8W/4KXHbBwrark8Dqyg3 AAm4mdC3tjMs9oVngSgZl6F14JU0ts+qFoR5TitKReteKUj4FpyFOgMH77Z0F4L8rHaa vZscM3z/iWUY67m4F7kQZ6Hx8Yrm259pDoAk+W/fuSoSu7ustQLDX0OFOrKabsvpqjFK TiGIC1hoZVl8WSRCejr3n1OjfHA0f3rMltIQAXWCVDnvlRkBqag22sq29KqPWsOJMe0p fBlMNPuBudaGNhLx0+28DtQJQCTlsRMcoYqkEr+QLPXopIpvZeg3etdo1n4YaYFZvIoz uTdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=r1VbOalj1GSmJT85VlpUuglH0zG3Pr6q0bhE8PTD8nE=; b=io4uBx73/ZzXq+434e+GVTBSQX3+zX66tdXr9V2KIVdp8wDOT5bNAK22uUJvIHyX6Z L3vnzj39KYjO79qgTAGCI5qBoJ9m3yKw48G1FzmwJG/SKDXssAok2dh6+J+n1HXhwEOr Ck0rhq3MXPaM+EBm5yOPz8Bd+BLJ8L9P9U2LrOWAEKFSumwx431Lmfp3/BOBifqoYKZT jCjQg7D43sQAIrDkL6tkyexjId65sBjPv5TsD105jYyHUH6OjFUSPQy+G2/b09MJmCyt tnu36Bc49JOE7CXoy+efspyZ5+YpDgnHbWONqGkN3tIGME5XDrWmJBch6XsgeCPqb1PK 7zSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531r6N4ZGt0F3fm5NCd0liyvQqi29362KZrOYgBLrqg0yurjdfN3 b4sPBqqbUqEFTtemUZYvYEL5hupdogW4Qw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPgsz+itNP+SmfGdJ3sbsyxMdWcQs6KoEpk37rVkDv0hT1I5sB7I7iRc2lwttLy6W0eDv1RA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a4c:: with SMTP id t12mr11759204wrw.249.1610276084763; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm18109946wmj.31.2021.01.10.02.54.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 02:54:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:54:42 +0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <1d0abb04-4987-43a9-85bc-bccc3bd6be9a@www.fastmail.com> <459d7ff7-e553-dce9-7d43-c3b1e772e572@gmail.com> <7f4fe9ca-1c20-6f69-cef0-a9718af742a3@gmail.com> <30906866-1971-8395-05a0-fd78d054bb89@gmail.com> <34d6a045-f7c3-4a77-8b22-378e84b2d1f9@www.fastmail.com> <12c6939d-14ed-4f7c-b2bc-189307a20f74@www.fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <4D0852BA-DF93-4B57-A521-3DB50D46009A@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Analysis of property visibility, immutability, and cloning proposals From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 10 January 2021 01:24:38 GMT+00:00, "G=2E P=2E B=2E" wrote: >Moreover, asymmetric visibility does not prevent mutating an object by >calling the constructor once again as follows: >$obj->__construct(=2E=2E=2E$args); That's pretty trivial to work around: mark the constructor private and pro= vide one or more public static methods that call it=2E That's actually a pr= etty common and useful design in its own right=2E It's also something that could probably be banned at the language level=2E= I seem to remember it being discussed before, but the details aren't quite= trivial because you need to allow parent::__construct etc=2E I'd rather sp= end the time to work out those details than design the rest of the language= around it being possible, if it's really that much of an issue=2E Regards, --=20 Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]