Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118691
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>
 <e82e0d67-bd0e-4f8d-a572-ac99f9bbbe06@www.fastmail.com> <CAMrTa2FQ=FHSPdaHwOwirddkbkKiXjwdT9pPjCZ3ScER+28Ltw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa0a6e10-42ee-44af-8a38-e9b9558bba76@www.fastmail.com> <CAH5C8xUQy6-JYo1ZodazzP_jKnDSkNZZidw=MBRrMh0LQLi-Fg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xUQy6-JYo1ZodazzP_jKnDSkNZZidw=MBRrMh0LQLi-Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2022 14:01:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMrTa2H4VL9c+sHApG67zne2QS1=+pDCWiwxk7zLoMwFxCrFuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>, 
	php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000e153b05e986b8f9"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Issues with readonly classes
From: jordan.ledoux@gmail.com (Jordan LeDoux)

--0000000000000e153b05e986b8f9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.=
com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Tim, and I also think that both reverting and making any las=
t
> minute fundamental change is not a good idea, especially
> because people don't have a clear agreement about how inheritance
> should work. Readonly classes is an optional feature, so anyone
> who wants proxies to work can simply not add the readonly flag to their
> classes. Of course, it's a bit more tricky for library code,
> but package authors should be aware of this gotcha. Having that said, I'l=
l
> try my best to fix the current shortcomings for PHP 7.3.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9
>

I tried hard to make it clear that I don't think this makes it "broken", it
was just a deviation from my expectations and memory, both of which can
obviously be flawed. I was mostly looking for some kind of information
about what the reasoning was for this, given that I obviously (since I
didn't remember it) missed that part of the discussion. The distinction
between "readonly" and "immutable" is subtle, but fair. This distinction
should probably be pointed out quite explicitly in the documentation
though.

If my default assumption (and Larry's) was that such a class would be
immutable, it's fair to think that a non-trivial number of other
programmers may make the same faulty assumption, and making this
distinction obvious in the documentation would probably help.

Jordan

--0000000000000e153b05e986b8f9--