Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118673 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22506 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2022 18:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2022 18:07:49 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332EE1804AB for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:07:49 -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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,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-vs1-f50.google.com (mail-vs1-f50.google.com [209.85.217.50]) (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 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 129so4009117vsi.10 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:07:48 -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=vp1waeI4PnjFCLDFr1/INJ4YQPKMFwmsryGmQWEsofg=; b=GR6OB9RV9KCLs/19KF+hhSI/AnrqSisenDAH6W/6Ts8VjEmz0rIbYquZXBJoBX9Ww0 3+ZPImjisX7vlEd9cCUfoWN4FhOIVJSSWrpLf9tP3UZtoWZiBqQ9QWmz0tAYxS9JYjRd nazKJqSQ2S3KmE/zB6/nyu24FoqZhk7yLlX6f6wWt74a69ELoh0LWGFMh0XMLtVm5COV ZM4fI89QszhRM/z+f/x6kaumwsJbdclkYmMUkiBCQftVMBWywFvjdk+SS9f5uuaD2F/M LGXa+pg8xGACUr/7JdP29UFreojOkuoCi0A7DtCp9fwAVpmreHO7K87dT8qXPc45v8st bZUA== 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=vp1waeI4PnjFCLDFr1/INJ4YQPKMFwmsryGmQWEsofg=; b=jOYhPowHwJ7QlrzbF45Reg09CClFTV7biIqX2ld5stY3L8UYBRmTbIudDhpEJlZDHm QBh1dmZj9cmqlWjfZ9InUi+7MwYN9VdrAKzfOekCEOKb4vONXjEwi1ZK/7im3cSR0BmJ qlm0BnRJzakA44c0HKuTvpgzqTqnY238aWnhiLiIw6yPvWOttOKXIPH3hJ63oqBSSyK4 39hqDxah0YVF5rDqkY8K466HJL1CtDAFHZQEZPcNDO6zUNm1pCpXRabjPSlcr2b40rc8 ND8JK7L3xnRjG89DQFqxV8Srqv1CLGHFnngDuvu+mDaXGfGsDSvBH/WohCyPcFrQxdXc yuSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1QYaJOFrRRP6bm+ebL1GaUZodqqIk1+O1utsP/L76VGcGcQSS3 shaks7RBrxb9DTm0XV2nxa7WxDPJA3Ke22hqi619bEV4 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6CSO2lknzo9+ElGEviB5oFh++diUUcs5v5zV9/Hr9DKpUu4IEMWt5eBUn98LhW6z50AWBPiq7FVTfi116Fufs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:5591:b0:38a:9691:933f with SMTP id dc17-20020a056102559100b0038a9691933fmr8226267vsb.54.1663697267870; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:07:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:07:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: Larry Garfield Cc: php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa551b05e91fb497" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Issues with readonly classes From: jordan.ledoux@gmail.com (Jordan LeDoux) --000000000000aa551b05e91fb497 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 8:22 AM Larry Garfield wrote: > > > Hm. I seem to recall during the discussion of readonly classes someone > saying that object properties of a readonly class had to also be readonly > classes, which would render the above code a compile error. However, I > just checked and that is not in the RFC. Was it removed? Am I imagining > things? Anyone else know what I'm talking about? :-) > > --Larry Garfield > > I remembered the same thing, and am similarly baffled. How did the RFC pass if you can do something as simple as `public readonly stdClass $var;`? I thought I followed the discussion on that RFC, but apparently I missed something. I would have expected an example like above to block acceptance of the RFC. To be clear though, I'm mostly confused about what the convincing argument about this was, or if it was something that everyone else viewed as an uncontroversial aspect? Jordan --000000000000aa551b05e91fb497--