Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120424
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xUn2wotLg0L7KZHoOGf3q-UqbL=47p2PLzK_mOBb=MJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpncdhKvhwiAFUh_c_8+_vr=u9HhYxws_WZArh7W3Fi0xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <799ae864-6e25-4196-a5ce-0d74600a8378@app.fastmail.com> <CAAwdEzCbRdDHN=WYZy_jnyrM9USG9k9bxn=AW-KVWB8iSrBmrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=Ch2iwOzxooiRcfk3WYMz-eYmQ51M-UP2Hh3bDogX5uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgp=Ch2iwOzxooiRcfk3WYMz-eYmQ51M-UP2Hh3bDogX5uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 11:18:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xV76ou5Edpvq-vzb6RytW5-3uGanX+Sqf92-qnH26ccBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000562805fcd19111"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--00000000000000562805fcd19111
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Everyone,

In the meanwhile, I changed my proposal to use [] instead of {} after the
"with" clause due to its better receptance.
Additionally, I removed support for the shorthand "property assignment"
syntax (clone $this with [property1: "foo"]) in
favor the more powerful one where the left-hand side supports expressions
(clone $this with ["property1" =3D> "foo"])
so that we have more time to decide whether the former one is really needed=
.

After talking with Nicolas and Alexandru off-list (I accidentally didn't
click "Reply All" in my response), we identified
that their "clone callback" proposal could also be a future-scope of the
current RFC with the following syntax:

clone $this with function (object $clone): void {
    $this->property1 =3D "foo";
}

In my opinion, this syntax is OK, albeit it's a bit long to write and a bit
difficult to decipher its meaning (maybe it's
just me). That's the main reason I prefer my originally proposed syntax.
Apart from this, I don't see a big issue with it,
neither conceptually, nor with the implementation.

Regards,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--00000000000000562805fcd19111--