Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118680
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOWwgpk7uAkZD_CH5inbm8Ng8iVL5SZsz59Mpzgpc_iG42ei8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xU=eukkqn+PToG4-JT0vqjChhkY=kd_4t_ki9mXu1UMqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c20b9aae-fbbf-484e-b73b-b370e4783ada@www.fastmail.com> <CAOWwgpkp0ndSgnS4aOiWqf+omcfT0_AiP0P35SC4hDZw0KDoHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7930779c-1782-4ecd-8e3d-42ba9e199bdc@www.fastmail.com> <CAOWwgpmbjbGm2NYe99=qzdtZkPVY=aYe-bJFtfZC-G7nxZyd+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVAsfX3-PwiE7pXOsuu_WSk9w3nLWQ-bcXizw8JAkPE_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpkLMaU1f5UAjsKy3gZkmL2Q0_1dD3j8fUaiooKyFVyi4g@mail.gmail.com> <CADyq6sJ9Vpp_gVmjL+uPZTxUKmhNORN6eyCmvsH=eJ6kOH6WZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sJ9Vpp_gVmjL+uPZTxUKmhNORN6eyCmvsH=eJ6kOH6WZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:48:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOWwgpk0EOYGKUJ++Hgdb4jZ6RUi8ywsbEKqsEqLnxNxCRYeXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9fc0705e92cd960"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Issues with readonly classes
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--000000000000f9fc0705e92cd960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> What's your take about 8.2? As I demonstrated, readonly classes are broken
>> because of this propagation to child classes.
>>
>
> s/broken/working as expected
>

broken. see thread

>

--000000000000f9fc0705e92cd960--