Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126032
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------TQBCxpMAzJxsJwmOtkOfRlho"
Message-ID: <163a08c1-2279-4a3f-a1bb-8cdfe406a4ba@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:22:51 +0000
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Data Classes
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <18b85ba5-5f1c-489c-9096-3ae203977fbe@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <18b85ba5-5f1c-489c-9096-3ae203977fbe@app.fastmail.com>
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------TQBCxpMAzJxsJwmOtkOfRlho
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 23/11/2024 13:11, Rob Landers wrote:
> Born from the Records RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records) 
> discussion, I would like to introduce to you a competing RFC: Data 
> Classes (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dataclass).


Thank you for continuing to think about this, and PoC code is always 
useful to work through the implications.

It seems like this is going in a very similar direction to the work 
Ilija shared in April: https://externals.io/message/122845 and 
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13800

My knowledge of the engine isn't good enough to compare the two PRs, but 
the descriptions seem very similar. The main differences seem to be 
details mentioned in one draft and not the other:

- You have described details for constructors and inheritance, which 
Ilija left as open questions
- Ilija had considered how instance methods should behave, proposing a 
"mutating" keyword and "!" call-site marker. Your RFC doesn't discuss 
this - the changeName example shows behaviour *inside* the method, but 
not behaviour when *calling* it

Is it just an oversight that you didn't link to the previous discussion, 
or had you not realised how similar the proposals would end up? Either 
way, this looks like ripe ground for collaboration, unless there is some 
fundamental disagreement about the approach.


-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--------------TQBCxpMAzJxsJwmOtkOfRlho
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/11/2024 13:11, Rob Landers wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:18b85ba5-5f1c-489c-9096-3ae203977fbe@app.fastmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <title></title>
      <style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style>
      <div>Born from the Records RFC (<a
          href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records" moz-do-not-send="true"
          class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records</a>)
        discussion, I would like to introduce to you a competing RFC:
        Data Classes (<a href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dataclass"
          moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dataclass</a>).<br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Thank you for continuing to think about this, and PoC code is
      always useful to work through the implications.</p>
    <p>It seems like this is going in a very similar direction to the
      work Ilija shared in April: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://externals.io/message/122845">https://externals.io/message/122845</a>
      and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13800">https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13800</a></p>
    <p>My knowledge of the engine isn't good enough to compare the two
      PRs, but the descriptions seem very similar. The main differences
      seem to be details mentioned in one draft and not the other:</p>
    <p>- You have described details for constructors and inheritance,
      which Ilija left as open questions<br>
      - Ilija had considered how instance methods should behave,
      proposing a "mutating" keyword and "!" call-site marker. Your RFC
      doesn't discuss this - the changeName example shows behaviour
      *inside* the method, but not behaviour when *calling* it</p>
    <p>Is it just an oversight that you didn't link to the previous
      discussion, or had you not realised how similar the proposals
      would end up? Either way, this looks like ripe ground for
      collaboration, unless there is some fundamental disagreement about
      the approach.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------TQBCxpMAzJxsJwmOtkOfRlho--