Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127974
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1e8634d7-ac1a-4025-b4e2-1948aabf5251@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMzRQTdDNsF_LPpNKUbVROTWjDbN2uDw-j2PrL3xp7qASA62GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <be533915-2b0d-460d-a5ea-76fe98fc4080@app.fastmail.com> <f4e4057b19a5ed9de7ad92215e78d58c@bastelstu.be>
 <cedce076-82de-4391-8a03-409690added9@app.fastmail.com> <CAOWwgp=o0PpE2b8TD9reKvO053UAu5RxTaFA7g+Huu7GozxrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <46857A6D-5EAF-44AF-A2DE-9B40AF8DE8C8@gmail.com> <41241c3d-a601-4fb8-9f32-976bea3b660e@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <41241c3d-a601-4fb8-9f32-976bea3b660e@app.fastmail.com>
Reply-To: erictnorris@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 11:42:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+NMNO2xo5tCrKLSJ770gPhm2K9u+YmQpPmPRSobLn1Ki1TZ_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: eric.t.norris@gmail.com (Eric Norris)

> An init hook would be clearer, certainly, though it also has its own edge=
 cases.  Can you set something that has an init hook?  What happens if ther=
e's both a get and init hook?  These probably have answers that could be so=
rted out, but that's a different question from "why the <censored> does a r=
eadonly class forbid me using even rudimentary hooks???"
>
> I'd be open to a follow up RFC for an init hook, though I likely wouldn't=
 write it myself.  But that's a different topic than what we're addressing =
here.
>
> --Larry Garfield

I'm not entirely sure I follow - it sounds like your email states that
`readonly` should be interpreted as `writeonce`, which makes sense,
but then why would an `init` hook not be the appropriate answer here?

The two scenarios you listed (`set` hooks for validation and lazy
computed properties) seem like they could be solved by allowing `set`
hooks (everyone seems +1 to that), an `init` hook, and disallowing
`get` hooks. It would sidestep the controversial nature of a `get`
hook for the property.

It feels to me like an init hook would be the more conservative
approach, and would (I imagine) still allow for potential `readonly`
engine optimizations like Tim pointed out. Once we allow `get` hooks,
there's no going back. If we still needed to add `get` hooks in the
future, it's not off the table.

I don't know that I feel strongly here, but there does seem something
intuitively off with allowing a get hook for a readonly (writeonce)
property.