Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127379
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 09:16:59 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <a6b4f018-79c7-4921-9ecf-d6899c2971ed@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <956887e5b66e2b43459b999ebac2069d@bastelstu.be>
References: 
 <CAMzRQTdePFXUMWO38g=gQA2vbqL5zp=o1cPt00ec41g95xys=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJp_myXREmnyufwxj4tDCsopouUFEWenap5EJaH+sXKTyg4K1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4a703db4174763586d84b9bf5606ff31@bastelstu.be>
 <b1bef725-5c17-47c4-8019-7f3135a5a682@app.fastmail.com>
 <956887e5b66e2b43459b999ebac2069d@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clone with v2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, May 15, 2025, at 8:53 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 2025-05-15 00:04, schrieb Larry Garfield:
>> Subtle point here.  If the __clone() method touches a readonly=20
>> property, does that make the property inaccessible to the new=20
>> clone-with?
>
> Yes. Quoting from the RFC:
>
>> The currently linked implementation =E2=80=9Clocks=E2=80=9D a propert=
y if it modified=20
>> within __clone(), if this is useful is up for debate.
>
> -
>
>> A single unlock block would be confusing to me.
>
> We=E2=80=99ve implemented it like that, because it felt most in line w=
ith what=20
> was decided in=20
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments#proposal_2readonly_proper=
ties_can_be_reinitialized_during_cloning,=20
> which says:
>
>> Reinitialization of each property is possible once and only once:
>
> We expect =E2=80=9Cpublic(set) readonly=E2=80=9D + =E2=80=9C__clone()=E2=
=80=9D to be rare and from=20
> within the class, the author knows how their `__clone()` implementatio=
n=20
> works and can make sure it is compatible with whatever properties they=20
> might want to update during cloning. The lack of =E2=80=9Cuse cases=E2=
=80=9D is the=20
> primary reason we made the more conservative choice, but we are not=20
> particularly attached to this specific behavior.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Fair.  I could probably think of a use case if I tried hard, but I can't=
 think of one off hand.  It's just surprising in the abstract.  I suppos=
e making it a single unlock scope leaves open the option to split it in =
two later, but the reverse is not true.  I won't fight for this one, jus=
t noting it as surprising.

--Larry Garfield