Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117599 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75942 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2022 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2022 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2141804C6 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 07:51:58 -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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS8972 80.67.16.0/20 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de (smtprelay03.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [92.198.40.181] (helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nj04D-0007I7-M0; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:51:57 +0200 Message-ID: <0b2440ac-219d-2c0b-e20b-c2beb8a1f97c@anthrotec.de> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:51:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 Content-Language: de-DE To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= , Larry Garfield Cc: php internals References: <4c685dfa-2a81-4eed-af70-3e34b7de50f0@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Df-Sender: dGhvbWFzLmd1dGJpZXJAYW50aHJvdGVjLmRl Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Readonly Classes From: thomas.gutbier@anthrotec.de (Thomas Gutbier) Am 19.04.2022 um 09:58 schrieb Máté Kocsis: > Hi Everyone, > > After quite a long pause, I'd like to revive the discussion of readonly > classes and possibly put it to vote in the coming week(s). > > If I'm following, then this RFC is about 90% syntactic sugar for putting >> `readonly` on all properties, plus disabling dynamic properties. That's >> the long-and-short of it, yes? >> >> Yes, exactly! Should this rfc (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_dynamic_properties) be considered here? The attribute #[AllowDynamicProperties] should not be allowed for readonly classes. Thomas