Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123481
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0a6a61cd-f203-4dea-a7f8-97e6b885c52d@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzB0rFhrai8W+B3PhnYEoOR-QEZYUm=R9+8+18Yo9WOgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aadcd4ed-5f73-fbb9-93fb-42f2710e61fe@php.net> <ED20EE91-9BBB-4FED-8440-BAE748CBF5AB@gmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzBrRJMBQbY0R1Tp8RWpUP_DW6twNvGqnKDp3jjbiBFE-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <734bb8e8-2fdf-4e50-9039-e53c99ee4930@app.fastmail.com> <A87ABAAF-E8DE-4417-BF96-19268CD7F668@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A87ABAAF-E8DE-4417-BF96-19268CD7F668@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 23:26:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPzBOBM6J5Ecd=Fn4WL2sqUffv3ZmC4XFG1Ov5d6kmVmd1jXEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Asymmetric Visibility, v2
To: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: landers.robert@gmail.com (Robert Landers)

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:13=E2=80=AFPM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 31 mai 2024 =C3=A0 18:08, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> a =
=C3=A9crit :
>
> However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properti=
es (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scop=
e (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, =
the definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different fr=
om how inheritance works elsewhere.  When the parent writes to the same pro=
perty, a special check is needed to verify the two properties are related. =
 All that special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 wouldn't re=
ally be "write once + private(set)", but "write once + private(set) - final=
", which is... just kinda screwy.  That means our options are:
>
> * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden)
> * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final.
> * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all.
>
>
> Another possible option is:
>
> * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default.
>
> That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in a=
 compatible and acceptable way?
>
> =E2=80=94Claude
>
>

I know this doesn't really contribute to the conversation ... but if I
could ever mash a +1 on a single email, this is the email I'd choose.

"Best elegant solution that happens to delete readonly without
deleting readonly" award.

Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL