Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115258
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAF+90c9kZMwjUupnCJ+Ak3SKtQSC3Mb3GTcVJWUfYG6BDkbKPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpmYRgfBWxvH7j0984rSXKDM_i3jEmwo+A7=MHCa=da5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c3a82f3c-2aa4-4e71-faca-782757167166@processus.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:49:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgpmYRgfBWxvH7j0984rSXKDM_i3jEmwo+A7=MHCa=da5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Readonly properties
From: pierre-php@processus.org (Pierre)

Le 01/07/2021 à 16:38, Nicolas Grekas a écrit :
> 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 respectfully disagree.

Having readonly properties and immutable objects is a must have, but 
changing property of an object while cloning, not so much. There's many 
case where readonly properties will be valuable where you never need to 
clone your objects. Actually, cloning objects is not something you do 
every day.

Please note that I agree with you that advanced / flexible clone 
semantics would be a nice to have, but I don't see the lack of it 
blocking for readonly properties.

I personally don't have any real use case where I couldn't implement 
withers on my objects doing the same than dedicated advanced clone 
semantics. Could you please provide some real world examples ? People 
could change their minds if they could see why it's so blocking for you.

Regards,

--

Pierre