Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127372
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMzRQTdePFXUMWO38g=gQA2vbqL5zp=o1cPt00ec41g95xys=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJp_myXREmnyufwxj4tDCsopouUFEWenap5EJaH+sXKTyg4K1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMzRQTfWj=CFsu=OyOiK_HiwCM5UkyPhfY3DiwSBF4N3FtzObA@mail.gmail.com> <F38892E6-4219-4B1A-A2C5-4F06AE70056F@koalephant.com>
In-Reply-To: <F38892E6-4219-4B1A-A2C5-4F06AE70056F@koalephant.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:32:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB-BujZLV=dccE6WjBFaLMSM977=fmJOirHSTbhJ1GuZj6iPdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clone with v2
To: Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Cc: Volker Dusch <volker@tideways-gmbh.com>, 
	"Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <mweierophinney@gmail.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: andreas@dqxtech.net (Andreas Hennings)

On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 08:24, Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com> wrote=
:
[..]
>
>
> I may be missing something here..
>
> So far the issues are "how do we deal with a parameter for the actual obj=
ect, vs new properties to apply",  "should __clone be called before or afte=
r the changes" and "this won't allow regular readonly properties to be modi=
fied".
>
> Isn't the previous suggestion of passing the new property arguments direc=
tly to the __clone method the obvious solution to all three problems?

What exactly should happen then?
Would the __clone() method be responsible for assigning those properties?
Or does the __clone() method get the chance to alter the values before
they are assigned?
(this would mean they have to be passed by reference)
I think this last option is the best, because the values in the array
can be changed without any readonly constraints.

Another option I was thinking of would be to call __clone() after the
changes are applied, and pass both the original object and the array
of changes as first parameter.
But I think this is a dead end.

-- Andreas

>
> There's no potential for a conflicting property name, the developer can u=
se the new property values in the order they see fit relative to the logic =
in the __clone call, and it's inherently in scope to write to any (unlocked=
 during __clone) readonly properties.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen
>
>
>