Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119349
Message-ID: <A6C3A949-6482-43C5-A3B9-1EDC71613D4A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_463764A9-6702-4C38-8232-4D38B215DFF0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.300.101.1.3\))
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:10:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <B8D6D14C-C510-4C6C-B5AC-AC369184D583@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: =?utf-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5C8xUd4ueJ62pR6vT2haz9rFgrgspJQui1rPCqTneupD+tsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sLFZpM1A+V-aa3dWjY1mL=65e-kxeiyBHABNPZR2GfpKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaMKc-PQD8YD6yDWPrMONcJdYqFCXgyJZuZZBVsT7VSy89A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sJxNQKvDNsT48tsG=AUS8snbGvuR332Yaip-krd+yynaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaML4Xq7Oo+pN7cAj3aQt3y3et33EzsQhxhqNZA22nOUuNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yXLSVH0X=dteA=GO+=UPSzSDfCecALytjRFG-u+0QRyGWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a719c9d1-de30-41d2-b7ae-24dc53a57d90@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xUer=mrRNYrdYpiYk6Z+nfaeZuacCJdAa3Oi8hyw97+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B8D6D14C-C510-4C6C-B5AC-AC369184D583@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Readonly class amendments
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)

--Apple-Mail=_463764A9-6702-4C38-8232-4D38B215DFF0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8



> Le 19 janv. 2023 =C3=A0 10:12, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> a =
=C3=A9crit :
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> Le 19 janv. 2023 =C3=A0 09:01, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis =
<kocsismate90@gmail.com> a =C3=A9crit :
>>=20
>> Hi Everyone,
>>=20
>> As discussion apparently stalled, and since we managed to update the =
RFC
>> with the recently brought up arguments, we would like to start the =
vote
>> soon, possibly early next week, unless someone finds a new topic to =
discuss.
>>=20
>> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9
>>=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> One shortcoming around readonly classes that I just figured out, is =
that it is not possible to use them as anonymous class:
>=20
> ```php
> $c =3D new readonly class { }; // parse error
> ```
>=20
> While it does not makes sense to have `abstract` and it is not useful =
to have `final` in this position, on the other hand, it is perfectly =
reasonable to have readonly here. (This is especially problematic in =
case we keep the limitation that only readonly classes may extend =
readonly classes, because in that case, an anonymous class could not =
extend a readonly class. However, this is an orthogonal concern.)
>=20
> =E2=80=94Claude

As I think that this limitation is most probably a bug and not a =
deliberate decision (the RFC introducing readonly classes did not =
mention restrictions around anonymous classes), I have open a bug =
report: https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/10377

=E2=80=94Claude


--Apple-Mail=_463764A9-6702-4C38-8232-4D38B215DFF0--