Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120062 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23174 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2023 08:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2023 08:10:06 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110B3180545 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:10:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, 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-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) (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 ; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f16fd9bc0dso18057285e9.2 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:10:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681805403; x=1684397403; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IxBxuVldqI9JF3pHE9oNU4TNUr8zGMIGYnJvhIPS1G8=; b=TnRDKWqu9RWeOPKsyfUsh0TzjySmjeh6VRsrgFdxcmDnZ1VOxY0d2KrXjPzlspOPY5 DGsVM9rZerlMjRKcDqanlOBeJmRCUBuj7cO7qJ+F1S5qhKLZNqo52VO7VQw/7dyto0C2 kp7cqCETc/LlOPkRfZWLBke2mVQjM6L2fQcqGBJ+h5lUTianGmYxAAddTMrTl1aFygaZ M8lpKRCxH5RQdzdlNyPthypYqhWmHWhPau9e81Cg7BGRP+qadJRkh9iyIK6q1Uaijodm uUtsFdPuLStB59y4qQbekmOM23TmH0VinzS5UoilNJYqNPAYw+EVggiGf8X9OyBszh3Z sLsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681805403; x=1684397403; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IxBxuVldqI9JF3pHE9oNU4TNUr8zGMIGYnJvhIPS1G8=; b=VZDbWD6wJACRsKNQVLWJ68+J6WnHV8ZTr9b2jjJttwCVh7BM2jAwzUGj7NC4swF1wC /pAyrsEbUkLCJzKWC3/EQRa+EV/F0vGpDMtfZ2qa5UvzCGgUIPxpeDoscBaz+leLmOaD x7QLhY29Sv5AXKZvnKe0iMz570VkAW/pSuZjdtRwPiCcG0iPdzx33izPR4ajvJ6F0FQ9 FGmSgUQ9OV84RVZFfdqh84nPZFwXZZHEaRGDb+B3HIos/a8llWRFCMA6fybv3JNIBy0E i3O88ZpoKOzsBjCp4V+5BP+lkBMZ6NfGVoglfAABoT2V0TWASoFziSlZ7zB6kgGEWq0V 1jog== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eRuBUq0kkT3N5vmG9Ab6LnRkv/Xy5bInfB0wk66tVk2j4NQzcU JNVZSLZxe4SO2Idp/z4R4NyfpNI4ibI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bwdcQmaRN6aSTznE9pDxpprL8dla3bHtTti710CLbvCicNqbze5f6TWK4A7zZDNudzEXSggg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:edcc:0:b0:2ce:a6be:2bd with SMTP id v12-20020adfedcc000000b002cea6be02bdmr1123833wro.1.1681805402523; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc83311-brig21-2-0-cust191.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [86.20.40.192]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v3-20020adfe4c3000000b002f459afc809sm12437975wrm.72.2023.04.18.01.10.01 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <305ba080-817f-bbb9-7378-8bd3616ab94c@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:10:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 17/04/2023 07:32, Máté Kocsis wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/clone_with I look the look of this; very concise. A couple of clarifications that might be useful to add to the RFC: 1) You mention in the Alternatives sometimes needing access to the original instance; it would be good to have an example of how this looks with the clone-with syntax. 2) How does this interact with an __clone() method? I'm guessing the __clone() would be called first, and then the with-clause applied? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]