Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127655
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:11:16 +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-BujZgMd9hLjReKzMg9qdUbsc8civ+mVuMKbAGMxM-kopW9A@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>
Message-ID: <79ebdfd4c6961e10b0517423a210026d@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 21:37, schrieb Andreas Hennings:
> While these are valid arguments, I don't know that the other thread
> had enough time to settle and agree on this array syntax.
> The last time I looked at it, it still had the named arguments.
> (Unfortunately I don't have permissions to see the RFC edit history,
> so not sure how long ago this was changed.)

Volker announced the change in the discussion thread on May 26 
(https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/127460, 16 days ago).

However the “named parameters vs array” question was an open question 
since the very beginning of the discussion (May 14, 28 days ago) where 
we specifically asked for opinions, asked again on May 19 (23 days ago) 
and after we only received an opinion from Larry, I stated my own one on 
May 21 (21 days ago), which Theodore then agreed with.

One June 2 (9 days ago), Volker announced the intent to open the vote 
(after 5 days without any further emails, 
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/127539) for June 4 (7 days ago).

There were 21 days of discussion, for 9 of those days the change was in 
the RFC text, for 14 of those the change could've been anticipated and 
for 21 of those folks were able to add their opinion. I'd say this is 
plenty of time for the “syntax to settle”.

> In the other thread I proposed an alternative where instead of passing
> the original object as a parameter to __clone(), we are passing the
> values from the "clone with" call.
> This would be more suitable when __clone() is called before the values
> are assigned.

Yes, this is listed in the Future Scope section of the RFC.

>> So from my perspective, there was no active discussion going on as 
>> nobody else spoke up for a week and nothing changed with Nicolas, 
>> admittedly regrettably timed, last email. Which we also answered in 
>> detail. So I fail to see how this problematic.
> 
> I don't see Nicolas' last email from 4 Jun being answered.

This email arrived after the RFC vote was opened and besides clarifying 
some points of Nicolas' earlier email (which I answered) only mentioned 
that I did not diligently list all possible follow-ups in the “Future 
Scope” section. However the future scope section is non-normative 
anyways, details are figured out in the follow-up RFC if / when it 
arrives. Passing both the original object and the $withProperties array 
would be possible, as I mentioned in the discussion.

> So, this does indeed feel rushed.

We carefully considered all the opinions voiced in the discussion and 
are confident in the design of the RFC. Every RFC author has their own 
vision and RFCs are naturally opinionated, building something we don’t 
believe should be in PHP or would not use ourselves would not make 
sense.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus