Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118668 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78941 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2022 07:59:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2022 07:59:24 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023A5180511 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:59:24 -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=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-oa1-f41.google.com (mail-oa1-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-12b542cb1d3so3011109fac.13 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=3bXMdWC9iXaN0UTV24yLuzWrRCQ6b1XOn8D6mXGgCmM=; b=dhQLi9zDSTDfp5zjl0eL/oJWnUTB/OeqehGWz3qVi+8X1hD11ktmXuRVGSN8C4rmVh Ad++sjWKUqppqQM1/lHctOu3BO+bsFIYlELjfvZ0hWOtbdPou6Al//9A/+LuZTZULX0p VCN2ARtGFz7BX0unP7dU3h8A7iyClf9HuBIWm2XG8Ht/eV7e6n/e/XMq04aGqrxTrxPl Q5MMpt6h23G9RuwXVPxS36mFpj9eiq0SyhoqVQSzjq05AnRLz0EIYojgOKJxwshu6K9h yZObtrJzP+n4gCT86zMZaTRXOBEn6gsTLm652hviA2zgn8OUcoDIOC4SJQkwaEepISSS wiMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=3bXMdWC9iXaN0UTV24yLuzWrRCQ6b1XOn8D6mXGgCmM=; b=NkZPuSU++jsg88fdE8feiiW4P1MSk3cF3WeK8TIBME8iz5hy/awS41iE24zeBmdolg GIXs0hphNlzYWbSMpG3fls2YOaza6FD7M7Q+XChDJe6sp+K3+INo1wm9EA4LYRAOWFj9 0wtsBOjp53FIZ94VE9JjFni4Ls9829dmUTS39cvjUcq+hWw2x2wXCUZ2J5YmV8XLdmMp PSEHqATZheiLaqKLYwLZTiFBbHxCpDiJA/aJdc6syKqiHIMoIph6YR2L5NPsaMOwGH6c hUh138C5q6qFaVmvNLgt13EL7qa6vYzBGTKDTeqIXIOZghHMmurjjZA+6W7hFRK7sZOt PRDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1HmGIlBMX38mdnQPVvFFbE/TSOcvsAj+nMb5XcDrSoYl2BW18X Sm+gDVHQUpxvu2QMcvm6hGWdtTqC7mmX6oYOgK8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7nI0nm/LtjfiYBh0POzVXxAPQFIMSd94pk/k/iVRIkYbdZFuIWpFnTSfizauMnB85P//gnSwvqtV+JoYTR/lo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:5704:b0:12c:be39:504 with SMTP id k4-20020a056870570400b0012cbe390504mr1309282oap.18.1663660762960; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7930779c-1782-4ecd-8e3d-42ba9e199bdc@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 09:59:09 +0200 Message-ID: To: Nicolas Grekas Cc: Larry Garfield , php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd99fb05e9173456" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Issues with readonly classes From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=) --000000000000cd99fb05e9173456 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nicolas, Larry, Mate, WDYT? > When I was working on the readonly class RFC, I realized that the readonly keyword very naturally fits services besides value objects. So my expectation has been that until we can fix the issue with cloning, people would mainly apply readonly to services. Not that it is very useful, but I would also feel some kind of weird fulfillment by doing so. Regarding cloning: I created a WIP PR not long ago to fix the aforementioned cloning issue, and I'll pursue a readonly amendment RFC in the coming weeks (or month) containing the long awaited improvements for cloning (hopefully together with the "clone with" construct) and possibly with this inheritance-related change Nicolas proposed, unless someone can come up with an ultimate counter-argument. Regards: M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 --000000000000cd99fb05e9173456--