Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115257 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69162 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2021 14:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2021 14:18:18 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC10180502 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 07:38:48 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (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 ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 07:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id hc16so10744267ejc.12 for ; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 07:38:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wzkNDHBRJzhNedFmJrFQ1ya1h3GOjxglRHQbpM24KcU=; b=oxCbXcYRhLCMlm3N9G9o/Y28wAIHLbJw1k1L+ChplgW36SKtdinncGokXe/UtJe/ML 0Rhn79t0Y++90fAQ09QpykxAY9h5UMuW2Y60EI+1awgqh7mO7w7ZNnFvKLV9ZSiJ1AN1 oNFDgb5DttCzxItcA4a+iC421FPaQ2LffgX4tQKej++OTfgoLIVBV8qLNyONBTGwbeiT WJ4dZAt0vC+TNBDtFyDM92DwXXQYMgT7yO1iZj60MHUQHlxQNSH+fOtbRp7I5pyq9irs LKXqIlpJzEucy6m4lGLcjVAN1ZHwFQ8M/VkhNp7rxYh21dsURgSDqQNrGlXUyQvvAsKx frUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wzkNDHBRJzhNedFmJrFQ1ya1h3GOjxglRHQbpM24KcU=; b=gjlm4TFWyH8AJNXQihnWgpNu5tGtJYx3pU0OM0OZg6Avvc6jVAJXPU8fIHhHsTg5Qa Re7NyiV+ikhXLBTZ8ICPFMIieI66Jbc5dGMG79ttuODb85fJJAi58gj0OZVnBFf/SqaN oDS9bXd2ExCLdFBlCHSWfrPuNTLad/0dU/w6mCyhLS3tt8Ef6PxGthFTArrfomxIzx29 JkpuprsRS8a65nt2h1VuFZW827SWVA7XXZW1T3bS7uJdAuP6aBU4gtSNqJzGuciPIGw5 DXmmI+ZfR94cFQ3ljefRKwvb7FkOWcEN+4n54npCcKVv3bmx1EPcDsG0cgG8GYkyDqWO +aqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PI/6G4+IJIz3IvAPE7SWVSJEalXqQT4XTJ5Yzic9ypaIF3KFW m9RHxIRBawp0EUOMZpxwMgW1c5MS0+EL1Jfy1Po= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwP6m3Gw16b07TvARzkeirsf/g9bLC09Sw+lni35mkKng8yGtG+JioudP4jgH3FJ4kb5n5M8RwvFRkh6sOj2fQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:841a:: with SMTP id n26mr166942ejx.430.1625150324254; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:38:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8b2bb05c610cb7e" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Readonly properties From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas) --000000000000c8b2bb05c610cb7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 =C3=A0 12:23, Nikita Popov a = =C3=A9crit : > Hi internals, > > I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2. > The vote closes 2021-07-15. > > See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the discussion thread on this > proposal. I think a decent tl;dr is that readonly properties as proposed = do > not play well with clone-based withers, so some people believe we should > either improve cloning first, or introduce asymmetric property visibility > instead, which does not suffer from this issue. > Hi NIkita, I voted against the proposal because it doesn't work with cloning at all. Cloning is a critical feature of stateful objects, and we should solve it the same version that introduces readonly IMHO. If we figure out that we can't agree on a sensible improved behavior for cloning, we're going to be in a dead-end with readonly. I think we are not in a hurry and that we should wait for the RFC that improves cloning to add readonly. In another thread, you write: It's okay to vote against this if cloning is a deal breaker. In that case > I'll probably either work on cloning before re-proposing this, or pivot t= o > asymmetric visibility -- it's not my first preference, but it may be the > more pragmatic choice. Cloning is definitely the weak point of this > proposal. > I think this is a strong enough weak point to warrant postponing the decision. Also, this very statement about asymmetric visibility being more pragmatic is a string hint that we need time to explore it at the same time IMHO. Cheers, Nicolas --000000000000c8b2bb05c610cb7e--