Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127654
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:53:56 +0200
To: Andreas Hennings <andreas@dqxtech.net>
Cc: Volker Dusch <volker@tideways-gmbh.com>, Larry Garfield
 <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Clone with v2
In-Reply-To: <CAB-BujZYiMgvRst2wChw4x9RnpV76F7g02UVzwGqaBV-8PKhRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMzRQTcN0VpQ_Ap_3WokH+aXp+EuSs=j=FLAL-43-0XgzgNtjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpmWm5i-KmSAfLBQ-VN7t7SnbvGBoogT0b-fVZGhTRTsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa5a84e6-b5ad-43b8-b56f-f8f52ddcbc6d@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMzRQTeZUtFiV=EgLNetik1HxhTuUghUQ3S4D1GW2+OJuTvdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-BujZgMd9hLjReKzMg9qdUbsc8civ+mVuMKbAGMxM-kopW9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-BujZYiMgvRst2wChw4x9RnpV76F7g02UVzwGqaBV-8PKhRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6745e59cae2225e1e5c06fd7e686defb@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-06-11 22:09, schrieb Andreas Hennings:
>> Calling __clone() afterward would mean the new properties would 
>> already be set and the old ones gone, contrasting existing behavior 
>> and thus users' expectations.
> 
> But in fact both of the following sentences are true:
> - Currently, no further changes are applied to a cloned object after
> __clone() is called.

This is only true to a very small extent, specifically for `public 
public(set) readonly` properties.

For non-readonly properties, the user could just write into the 
properties after cloning, for `protected(set) readonly`, the user can 
just overwrite `__clone()` and for `private(set) readonly` the class is 
in control.

Rowan already summarized that during the discussion in 
https://externals.io/message/127353#127389 and Volker confirmed that we 
agreed with that.

> - Currently, no changes are applied to a cloned object before
> __clone() is called.
> 
> Both of these statements can describe user expectations, but each of
> them justifies a different version of the RFC.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus