Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119035 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 17635 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2022 20:45:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2022 20:45:24 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D63E1804F7 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 12:45:24 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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-f48.google.com (mail-vs1-f48.google.com [209.85.217.48]) (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 ; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-f48.google.com with SMTP id d185so7207825vsd.0 for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) 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:message-id:reply-to; bh=ho268H9FT7qZTKEHEVt76ihQofykRpGUY0ODwK+h0ME=; b=VvhIGS3+kW2CtxyGcPc7Rn4b/dMLbeI1B/vQeNfKZKDqLUr2F00RcmPwCw2oPqlHb6 S/p4i73xOtgdhA2qYfNRtNBwham/GVKmk0k0MgSXLN/YyONhh086BKzPR3uID2WE7UjB TSmjRx7ocHUs/tYij0CiHkMMQp+bOQbJhQiP3HP3lKhsQ476ag10mU2Vz/gK+nPPu7NX z+o+O9H0Q6TxJSm1GXyHwm/5bC2+tfAleobztI9d3i2y686WYZS3RCdEgoZC+ZmySb/D FZrdRk4dPhUDAJPPUK4n+Qz0uwgGWER1Lh9CB/ESt/aFhQ2iiF4cKD/pMUX8Lpzn4eW1 EOsg== 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:message-id :reply-to; bh=ho268H9FT7qZTKEHEVt76ihQofykRpGUY0ODwK+h0ME=; b=hfFL2LOoXgpLKQDPSP1KnpMTvL7hML5qwEBVY8Uefy2V9y9S8Jt+3WuJCXVGzeCnL9 dK/exeulMXRnoDTvFn9B5iNETJtae+fBlnE1bzoBjkgzJVyByxUcUOoQjzaWGBwRD+aU MAyRkke0g6n3r5C+X+oTtkQ0amQl/OLynfbjsdgK84lqrx7sHUCEx0yqYFjWVp31edmv WjSowf+bdmIp53bwPSzYrEj1IGJq+Z5sFUg8H/bPckhaVQHdYJ5i3nZIUiWnVUtMRIOS asz9B/zb4/7C9k+AQvJZDl2J1SmoUf3hxHjmv1XAWAs4G7HbTAxziMjzuepywqoiihsM yyzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnJfzY4D0Ragdl7UG7J2fpNmt+v4BJeXH9SSg6SA/kv/tMYd2Bg REHA8ghws/a1gtNzjQhwDRMsIdkQqdXYX3LfXEI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7AOHtFU3SlqboTURuKhKPL3Es4pYnwHcdbLS7QhmXOx4GfE4xH7RQTkJK6lX3u/V4NIcdTkgwG7XOPfXEtks8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3caa:b0:3b0:55dc:9c94 with SMTP id c42-20020a0561023caa00b003b055dc9c94mr15857136vsv.62.1669495522953; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 12:45:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 17:45:12 -0300 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= Cc: Marco Pivetta , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000998f4405ee65b76e" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Readonly class amendments From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu) --000000000000998f4405ee65b76e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, 4:45 PM M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis wrote: > We proposed this change because it wouldn't break anything that's already > not "broken". > > Regards: > M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 > The example provided already raised some eyebrows from people. I think the argument of "let's furthet enhance this 'broken' behavior" isn't that great= . I find the ability of child class to ignore the parent readonly definition awkward at best. > --000000000000998f4405ee65b76e--