Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115290
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c9kZMwjUupnCJ+Ak3SKtQSC3Mb3GTcVJWUfYG6BDkbKPA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9kZMwjUupnCJ+Ak3SKtQSC3Mb3GTcVJWUfYG6BDkbKPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 12:03:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CACwt+JcXC18A_NoVR4_2MgmtjcHQ2=gvjH5rN6w+qpfP6JpULg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b3ff5f05c65d69ee"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Readonly properties
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

--000000000000b3ff5f05c65d69ee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 =C3=A0 12:23, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>

Hi Nikita,

As much as I wish I could access publicly a property, but being denied
changing it:

    var_dump($object->property); // allowed
    $object->property =3D $newObject; //disallowed

I feel that the "readonly" feature will be used instead of asymmetric
visibility as suggested in "property accessors" RFC in cases where the
latter would be more appropriate.

I wish "Property accessors" RFC would have been open to vote for 8.1 as you
probably initially intended to for the following reasons:
- It doesn't suffer from the clone-based withers issue.
- It provides a way to declare properties in interfaces.

Maybe there are other drawbacks with that one that I don't see? Probably
the much higher complexity of it?

Although they are different concepts, I'm not sure we would benefit much
from "readonly" if we already had property accessors.

Just wanted to express my preferences.

Thanks for all the work!

Regards,
Patrick

--000000000000b3ff5f05c65d69ee--