Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120482
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>
 <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>
 <39511e44-93cb-4fde-b0ec-ce24ee88f4be@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <39511e44-93cb-4fde-b0ec-ce24ee88f4be@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 07:35:00 +0300
Message-ID: <CAAwdEzCbUbwX1+ZyhAC0R_R0uYt5zNirz6vNO07=Ao+zr9eN+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bcac2e05fcf5d87a"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with
From: drealecs@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?=)

--000000000000bcac2e05fcf5d87a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:53=E2=80=AFAM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.=
com>
wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 fo=
r
> >> > me, and I didn't really consider to execute the __clone() method aft=
er
> >> 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 throu=
gh
> >> as it's kinda hard to reverse later.
> >>
> >
> > To me so far also it was natural to assume that __clone is first and on=
ly
> > 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 r=
un
> > 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 na=
me
> > 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 properties
> or
> > using clone to preserve existing properties. But in both cases the firs=
t
> > 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 code=
?
>
>

Sorry for that. Here you go: https://3v4l.org/JIBoI/rfc#vgit.master
If __clone would be first, there is no way to enforce the rule that a
person cannot have their first name starting with the same letter as last
name.

Regards,
Alex

--000000000000bcac2e05fcf5d87a--