Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120470
Message-ID: <8f69d5cb-0d17-9794-ad11-d07ac5d1a87d@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:58:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: internals@lists.php.net
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>
 <CAH5C8xV76ou5Edpvq-vzb6RytW5-3uGanX+Sqf92-qnH26ccBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABdc3WqsVq4Jo1tt5EOevQ15aXhLA1+6SRmSENc8-K7SHX20Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <280bcea8-9483-4191-80d3-81763a988290@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVhiByYaRqF8nKqj=m=xanPt=WDOPOy0Rt3G48pNutJ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5db38bc4-a6fd-4cb7-b10d-3ad1a590888c@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5db38bc4-a6fd-4cb7-b10d-3ad1a590888c@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus?=)

Hi

On 5/30/23 18:37, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> To be honest, the current behavior seemed like the natural choice for
>> me, and I didn't really consider to execute the __clone() method after the
>> clone assignments.
>> Do you have a use-case in mind when you need to forward-pass information to
>> __clone()?
> 
> Not a specific one off hand.  It's more a conceptual question.  `with` has more contextual awareness than __clone(), so it should have "first crack" at the operation, so that if necessary it can make changes that __clone() can then respond to.  The inverse doesn't make sense.
> 
> The only reason for `with` to come after would be to allow `with` to "override" or "undo" something that __clone() did.  Generally speaking, if you have to undo something you just did, you shouldn't have done it in the first place, so that's a less compelling combination.
> 
> This one isn't a deal breaker, but we should be sure to think it through as it's kinda hard to reverse later.

FWIW if I would've create the implementation, I intuitively would also 
have chosen to first execute __clone() and then set the properties. Of 
course this isn't a well-argued reason to do it this way, but I wanted 
to share it nonetheless.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus