Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120480
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-447-ge2460e13b3-fm-20230525.001-ge2460e13
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <39511e44-93cb-4fde-b0ec-ce24ee88f4be@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAwdEzCNYcCJC=qzCNwoCo_GsVM=ZiBvo3kSd5_LM=7U=+7u3g@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <CAAwdEzCNYcCJC=qzCNwoCo_GsVM=ZiBvo3kSd5_LM=7U=+7u3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 23:53:13 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, May 30, 2023, at 10:04 PM, Alexandru P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023, 19:39 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wr=
ote:
>
>> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:22 PM, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis wrote:
>> > To be honest, the current behavior seemed like the natural choice f=
or
>> > me, and I didn't really consider to execute the __clone() method af=
ter
>> the
>> > clone assignments.
>> > Do you have a use-case in mind when you need to forward-pass inform=
ation
>> 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 cr=
ack"
>> at the operation, so that if necessary it can make changes that __clo=
ne()
>> 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 speakin=
g, if
>> you have to undo something you just did, you shouldn't have done it i=
n 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 thro=
ugh
>> as it's kinda hard to reverse later.
>>
>
> To me so far also it was natural to assume that __clone is first and o=
nly
> after that the rest of the operations.
> But `with` operations, be it properties assignment or even a closure, =
would
> run in the context of the caller of clone and sometimes this might be =
run
> not from a method of the cloned class.
>
> An example:
> There is a class that represents persons of a fictive country/planet.
> Each person has many properties but has also a first name and a last n=
ame
> and there is a rule: the two names must not start with the same letter.
> Both names cannot be changed as they are defined readonly.
> Creation of new persons can be done using new for new random propertie=
s or
> using clone to preserve existing properties. But in both cases the fir=
st
> name and last name are randomly chosen.
> If we want to control the last name value during clone that would be
> possible using the `with` operation but the logic to allocate a first =
name
> will only happen in `__clone()`method.
>
> To be able to achieve this we must have __clone last, as there we have=
 the
> internal validations, operations and also access to private/protected
> members that are not accesible from where clone is being called.
>
> Regards,
> Alex

I... could not understand that in the slightest.  Can you show it in cod=
e?

--Larry Garfield