Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127398
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAB-BujZLV=dccE6WjBFaLMSM977=fmJOirHSTbhJ1GuZj6iPdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <266FA35A-15B0-435E-BBFE-1C6926EB0B7E@koalephant.com> <CAB-BujauX9LDj8YJAdTrBvk4_iaCwT0fJC2EVsjzA15oNS4JCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BFC0EB8A-8A60-4CFD-8A07-2E89189A828C@koalephant.com> <7ec1997d-a8d4-43fd-870f-9a18872c7c8f@rwec.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7ec1997d-a8d4-43fd-870f-9a18872c7c8f@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 12:57:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMzRQTdKr+fjdmgRk2-pDA2hQXmFz6-n7B+y_3-a0iPhjtD7Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clone with v2
To: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0812d06357affde"
From: volker@tideways-gmbh.com (Volker Dusch)

--000000000000b0812d06357affde
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 8:46=E2=80=AFPM Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop.php@rw=
ec.co.uk>
wrote:


> However, readonly properties are "protected(set)" by default, so the
> situations where this can happen are actually quite limited:
>
> - Code inside the class itself (private scope) can reasonably be
> considered to be "opting in" to the feature it's using.
> - Code in a sub-class (protected scope) can by default over-ride the
> constructor anyway.
> - Code outside the class (public scope) will fail unless the property is
> explicitly "readonly public(set)", which would be pointless if it was
> always initialised in the constructor.
>
>
> So the only case I can think of where something surprising could happen i=
s:
>
> 1. A public or protected readonly property is initialised in a
> constructor marked "final"
> 2. A sub-class adds code that uses "clone with" to set that property to
> a new value
>
> The question then is, how worried are we about that scenario?
>

Your summary matches my ideas around the topic and I've updated the RFC [1]
to better clarify that we consider touching __clone to be out of scope.

From our perspective, we are not worried about the Points (1&2) you raised
and are not interested in solving this by providing parameters to __clone
as the additional cost, issues, and complexity are not a worthwhile
tradeoff in our eyes.

Kind Regards,
Volker

[1] https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/127397




--=20
Volker Dusch
Head of Engineering
Tideways GmbH
K=C3=B6nigswinterer Str. 116
53227 Bonn
https://tideways.io/imprint

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn
Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Benjamin Au=C3=9Fenhofer (geb. Eberlei)
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 22127

--000000000000b0812d06357affde
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 8:46=E2=80=AFPM R=
owan Tommins [IMSoP] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:imsop.php@rwec.co.uk">imsop.php@=
rwec.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_contai=
ner"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
However, readonly properties are &quot;protected(set)&quot; by default, so =
the <br>
situations where this can happen are actually quite limited:<br>
<br>
- Code inside the class itself (private scope) can reasonably be <br>
considered to be &quot;opting in&quot; to the feature it&#39;s using.<br>
- Code in a sub-class (protected scope) can by default over-ride the <br>
constructor anyway.<br>
- Code outside the class (public scope) will fail unless the property is <b=
r>
explicitly &quot;readonly public(set)&quot;, which would be pointless if it=
 was <br>
always initialised in the constructor.<br>
<br>
<br>
So the only case I can think of where something surprising could happen is:=
<br>
<br>
1. A public or protected readonly property is initialised in a <br>
constructor marked &quot;final&quot;<br>
2. A sub-class adds code that uses &quot;clone with&quot; to set that prope=
rty to <br>
a new value<br>
<br>
The question then is, how worried are we about that scenario?<br></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>Your summary matches my ideas around the topic and I=
&#39;ve updated the RFC [1] to better clarify that we consider touching __c=
lone to be out of scope.</div><div><br></div><div>From our perspective, we =
are not worried about the=C2=A0Points (1&amp;2) you raised and are not inte=
rested in solving this by providing parameters to __clone as the additional=
 cost, issues, and complexity are not a worthwhile tradeoff in our eyes.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Kind Regards,</div><div>Volker</div><div><br></div><=
div>[1]=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/127397">http=
s://news-web.php.net/php.internals/127397</a></div><div><br></div><div><br>=
</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div><span class=3D"gmail_signatur=
e_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;fon=
t-size:12.8px">Volker Dusch</div><div style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-fam=
ily:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Head of Engineering</div><div style=
=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div=
>Tideways GmbH</div><div>K=C3=B6nigswinterer Str. 116</div><div>53227 Bonn<=
/div><div><a href=3D"https://tideways.io/imprint" style=3D"color:rgb(17,85,=
204)" target=3D"_blank">https://tideways.io/imprint</a><br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn</div><div>Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: =
Benjamin Au=C3=9Fenhofer (geb. Eberlei)</div><div>Registergericht: Amtsgeri=
cht Bonn, HRB 22127</div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000b0812d06357affde--