Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119379 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12878 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2023 16:54:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2023 16:54:17 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBAB180548 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:54:16 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, 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-oa1-f43.google.com (mail-oa1-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43]) (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 ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-15085b8a2f7so6887505fac.2 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:54:16 -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=/dI5S4EPY8wZnrMCBN8hTuHaBKwUXA+xicPpiIfbPCw=; b=ZN/MHw1tVEmBGr7W7vsDxz8CFlbSqU4uR59r9p7VBJ5XQt80wHXqo+iELbh89i4YkW OsW1GwuAVmAQVBq4Bm5W/rMM7uhy2LDW75G/S4kEH/dy1PMleOOclYecL732muEFaxNa kQCdV2ZxDdqgyhzdqW3aS/UK5GUvaMzqrcRw2plNyv36dcE1oOwN72jBm4hnoRhgChNf Dgmzgkt1Nd74W5yEgXM+CVfUQr5q+3iC7LnH4ZzH+Q/oJ+WR3E3WvT9LIu0MBNPNoahU e3lQ2PLIMbeMSQaWBYtzoinyfclZdjLrSuxiqI9djS4JoZ/OKTCaDa/QTuHljMXve4IJ FmCA== 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=/dI5S4EPY8wZnrMCBN8hTuHaBKwUXA+xicPpiIfbPCw=; b=eacBldmXLYbliqwASjy8pQs7XZyaU+shHORDnJs/2oBDaIKS8+NuBkazgGEtO3GrEf MtvAQ9yqhmwAUVVeqvemAX/rbhIx6hJ1cDDq8ukgbBB6b2Ig+EkoMuXYiEtHhM/j73OO 2KabWH6sYXiahbMAZ5PdxktcclkmZ6/HdtmCT30yMIC6VHHcbTo/xbODvgIZZuEP0TFU HFj0Aij+8v2+gQdDhpUh4aLceRcD3IR6b1yJ7ESXLpvslK98QPpcqXyhaBYnyTmA3SUp pPV9BKMB7hl3wBRwiw9Jo3574URqnbGAOmpzdcjaIea8TrCj1gejg0GyXELINBU5Wbnv qIEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpcVE5mop2vIgJ6CowB8p2K5UI9ASi17eAPls/8t6w4KMJ38eAz OPo4Z3kVd8UIliKEa07L/JaAudI6CjLtvSAmlkY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvKhnoz2MSZKQut5U2IHEehEzRZG+DongVcnITPdIcn59InD4q27fuQbW3bKmTcK2wqkUS0KF8PGCVndlLiY9M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b16:b0:15b:957e:5785 with SMTP id lh22-20020a0568700b1600b0015b957e5785mr925870oab.75.1674233655292; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:54:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2115758d-79e9-340e-ed7b-176dd0927c79@bastelstu.be> In-Reply-To: <2115758d-79e9-340e-ed7b-176dd0927c79@bastelstu.be> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:54:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= Cc: php internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b7a9205f2b4e6a2" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Readonly class amendments From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=) --0000000000004b7a9205f2b4e6a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Claude, Tim, One shortcoming around readonly classes that I just figured out, is that it > is not possible to use them as anonymous class: > Nice catch! As you wrote, it's indeed an oversight of the readonly class implementation. Fortunately, we already have a PR with the fix. :) I'm confused by the linked PRs for the implementation, because they do > not appear to match what's proposed. Specifically the one for proposal > #2 (allow modification in __clone) appears to include unrelated changes > (a clone-with{} syntax). > Sorry for the confusion! The PR contains an implementation for the "clone with" indeed just because it builds on top of some specifics of the 2nd proposal in the "Readonly amendments" RFC. However, the first few (4) commits are related to allowing modification of readonly properties in __clone(). M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis --0000000000004b7a9205f2b4e6a2--