Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128113
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>
 <308e51e9-ebc9-4ab1-a727-46854b27701f@bastelstu.be> <CAMkukMxjTaebvr+wnqOBWbGhgxDiqNRsbNV+WepNoBmaeV9z0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <93a7a354-9779-4c2d-a146-a49388bc0159@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <93a7a354-9779-4c2d-a146-a49388bc0159@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:50:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sJ6QiwMk0J9G68V6hKdZck0V0AQovJK+oDXuD1yHKkgtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: Faizan Akram Dar <hello@faizanakram.me>, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, 
	php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096e5a0063a354075"
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--00000000000096e5a0063a354075
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:

> On 7/18/25 16:25, Faizan Akram Dar wrote:
> > The problem with allowing only set hooks is that readonly class won't b=
e
> > compatible with hooks, I think that is one of the main motivations behi=
nd
> > this RFC.
>
> Yes. The point is that the semantics users expect from `readonly` are
> fundamentally incompatible with a get hook that could return arbitrarily
> changing values whenever you read from a property.


Just a heads up: I also plan to vote "no" on this RFC because the
expectation with `readonly` is that there is no kind of interference or
lazy initialization anyway.

Now that lazy proxies have landed into core, there is also no need for
`__get` hacks anymore.

Marco Pivetta

https://mastodon.social/@ocramius

https://ocramius.github.io/

--00000000000096e5a0063a354075
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"lt=
r" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:tim@bastelstu.be" target=3D"_blank">tim@bastelstu.be</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br></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">
On 7/18/25 16:25, Faizan Akram Dar wrote:<br>
&gt; The problem with allowing only set hooks is that readonly class won=
9;t be<br>
&gt; compatible with hooks, I think that is one of the main motivations beh=
ind<br>
&gt; this RFC.<br>
<br>
Yes. The point is that the semantics users expect from `readonly` are <br>
fundamentally incompatible with a get hook that could return arbitrarily <b=
r>
changing values whenever you read from a property.</blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>Just a heads up: I also plan to vote &quot;no&quot; on this RFC bec=
ause the expectation with `readonly` is that there is no kind of interferen=
ce or lazy initialization anyway.</div><div><br></div><div>Now that lazy pr=
oxies have landed into core, there is also no need for `__get` hacks anymor=
e.</div><div><div><br clear=3D"all"></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gm=
ail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">Marco Pivetta <br><br><a href=3D"https://ma=
stodon.social/@ocramius" target=3D"_blank">https://mastodon.social/@ocramiu=
s</a><br><br><a href=3D"https://ocramius.github.io/" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://ocramius.github.io/</a><br></div></div></div><br></div><div><br></div><=
/div></div>
</div>

--00000000000096e5a0063a354075--