Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128105
Message-ID: <55f961d7-7967-461d-bfd8-77a82184e340@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:37:44 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
 <CA+NMNO2xo5tCrKLSJ770gPhm2K9u+YmQpPmPRSobLn1Ki1TZ_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <922a21f4-c28c-4824-b1d6-0c53ae080ffb@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <922a21f4-c28c-4824-b1d6-0c53ae080ffb@app.fastmail.com>
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

see also my previous reply to your email where you initially mentioned 
init hooks.

On 7/9/25 19:11, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Can an init hook reference itself, the way get and set can?

If the init hook references its own property you will get endless recursion.

> If there is both an init and set hook, what happens?  Is it different if set reads from itself than if it writes to itself?

The first bit I answered in my previous email. If set reads from itself 
and the property is uninitialized, it will invoke the init hook.

> Should combining init and set be forbidden as confusing?

No.

> Can you have both an init hook and a get hook?  What happens then?

See previous email.

> Repeat all of the above on readonly properties.

No difference, except that the 'get' hook should not be allowed there.

> there is a reasonable solution right in front of us that is trivial to implement.

I disagree on the "reasonable" part.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus