Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120566
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-492-g08e3be04ba-fm-20230607.003-g08e3be04
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <07b0f341-f062-45fe-ade0-52cf75003895@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5C8xXqLkyBee1U5pEZWP+VvktZULS2TyPPTpaZ0_V_c9oVLw@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>
 <39511e44-93cb-4fde-b0ec-ce24ee88f4be@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzCbUbwX1+ZyhAC0R_R0uYt5zNirz6vNO07=Ao+zr9eN+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpncC043ciO7HTuX954bfb+KWZ903zxKhQT-VigZh0WyYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e13aa53c-1c7c-47dd-8179-ca64ec180344@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xXqLkyBee1U5pEZWP+VvktZULS2TyPPTpaZ0_V_c9oVLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:13:06 +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, Jun 13, 2023, at 3:51 PM, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> In this case, if the `with` happens first, then the new address object=
 is
>> cloned needlessly, but that *probably* doesn't hurt anything.  But $n=
ewAddr
>> !=3D=3D $p3->address.
>>
>
> Yes, I agree with this: "clone $this with ["x" =3D> "y"];" is the easi=
est to
> mentally model as a shorthand for "$self =3D clone $this; $self->x =3D=
 "y";".
> If we agree with this model, then it would be weird to execute __clone=
() at
> the end indeed. But I think Nicolas' example explained this fact much
> better than I could. :) Also, separating __clone() from the rest of the
> clone opcode would be .
>
> And you are right, some objects may be cloned unnecessarily, which doe=
sn't
> hurt, but isn't ideal for sure. I should mention that in ideal
> circumstances (when all properties are readonly + all of them are
> initialized during construction + none of them are mutable internally),
> deep cloning is not 100% required, unless only for defensive programmi=
ng
> purposes.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

Where all properties are readonly, and if an object those are *also* rea=
donly, and all are assigned in the constructor...

Yeah, that ideal case is kinda narrow, and likely will remain so for a l=
ong while yet.

Whichever order it goes in, that should be documented explicitly and the=
 reasoning for it included.  (Feel free to pilfer my examples above exte=
nsively if that helps.)

As for the syntax itself, my preferences, in order, would be:

1. clone $foo with (...), where (...) follows named-argument syntax in a=
ll its variants and forms, which includes ...$arr.

2. clone $foo with $array, where $array is an honest to goodness assoc a=
rray/array literal, created by any means the developer wants.

Either of those are equally expressive; the first is, IMO, cleaner and e=
asier to read/type, and probably nicer on static analysis tools, but the=
y're still both equally expressive.

Anything less than that is, IMO, creating unnecessary confusion about ho=
w the syntax behaves that will trip up developers left and right.

--Larry Garfield