Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128155 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by lists.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFEFE1A00BC for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:56:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1753088113; bh=AGF/RR8TPest725Ba9EEu9h2sWlXuDlk9UZMYPWcif4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=By20sivdA/qbSwKtm6bMZzVL5oQZSFj/VlymjVajU1IJKFPdsNXzglhYE/lvGz6TM AFs5cyvRvtcEaAQhOPSOHLyktXzhUyewDoOOr7wqHRhZ+1wda+D7kXBSnZhp2WKWAv 0vQeu7UMQ/S6WQGx5COzSq2ntkASveK8cz3ftBVOtDeCugyLADYhbT/u1slFi6YphL vAbQkaKq7QVVcXg8XUV2esazYMAChcla9vMYc/ExfzxVbb0Z5nHsvB7/T9X3yFy5x7 L0bcKz4JfDrYmrH1UMrb5+rz8q+OObTSRv4PHA0GAbSSEC5sK0SuPP77h5NU37CuEs AAm3FlmthOzOg== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D361805D6 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:55:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_PASS,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: Error (Cannot connect to unix socket '/var/run/clamav/clamd.ctl': connect: Connection refused) X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4561607166aso30802905e9.2 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:56:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1753088217; x=1753693017; darn=lists.php.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+X9Sw9aYrSZatn0AyLxjaDWaTgQ30ZHHBt14KNsQ1Xg=; b=IFbtGRadrYbfQj56kt82Q6N+Ew7SI52C+iDgNKM3Gw5n9ZpvLU8WrvU+kCimvKdiP8 RxqP+Tn84H0vhbtvvb0cguquEgPq/sAIYhjlTrrA4QPSbVYmQ/dbAJIXiLKFCsR5kRkM V3NatnCszgAGsDuMgF4bW/utIJ+DjMvWpzaXbncIWxREmYqccSiQ8KdZEpPA22E2ZdbL QW7RPW3+YZVADWZXia+EP3xvIVZAkHEOvWYG4eX/f+Sr9JPE/9gdUimH2F92mt2DLCJF OvRyOw+lKr/RkKniwQsSQPmTlABzRbQjusAU8+v9/3lD9gauOc9Q1iO3wieVZWma8LPt wouA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753088217; x=1753693017; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+X9Sw9aYrSZatn0AyLxjaDWaTgQ30ZHHBt14KNsQ1Xg=; b=VrBwViw9sWOwqalONmgs7oqVquQ6RMVdhSDV7SvwP47m1MXWIf30G792eHkb/1yg7h D1BTVfAVNqs1Kqbxeqyw9jNi/qInTvyI2gXpAtNsiExBeFYfeu7Tm0r9Sg87pF+bi0RH SrZRC79SstV4K839RTXuuCI+7A3RO4kgzL7S8IYOO4RYYz1sFeeaF6d4z3pXoMBXvaBq 1LEdH2A32N00d/4Gv1loTwZYC5wHWi+gN8ylgDbKCsEIWoeFAjQid/c6D2jWqszZKHwL nNp2tKiTkoly9v1HKVknYDTiVL7z1ItiCFcoLZFJgQCrKKInAqwPueJ7YgPxBpQwAjbq 061A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx13z9wQTCtI9HFb/6cLDYnBOJpVsNPFbxdINOPJPsgrAfqbHz1 u1If7nPpXJ+60v4sfVGBbXCNsEBTh+oxBGiw+7HE43u/GrUV9IATZLdPfaM97Aty X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvvZTTxn2UBcsJEqZfTZzcJnfcPJELHQROg7mj3+zAt2O+lWI16Pecjg8LEDZN ArX4PF2FAWouALHzLkiy5rWns35QRfdI9rxiAwnt32d907FetUVRfngyb4JLlHopjDLPrvsy6UY k+btD8ZwuB2eN8K2qZ1MpBE1Nyhw3fxUuIbr1G9zruOvk8YQnzLsMX/gBTMNEo2+L/oN4qU46pc QVPsF1aMNTCqrVdmYlcLo4SDGxb5zjlfIvawM7U4O+r9kv4eeY9QgWVepFEw5/cShIawFM80OBF 6XIH0QwI2AE7ePEHBIOFM+tab7MGNXSnST6gRJDJqwD8q37j9fpddHzxylMMSJ+5flwEAMW9uGq I7otsGa/vAWmq+RyrdPPwo1pKBd04gCy/CQ+cTEJ15D3m/5ki2kWwCI5jCiLV2qKuodc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFKrPMsPYlQdjeWSigBeDIbMFld6aXpZBscs6aoKCpkElPfbJ61Nm9nxxq/ENROusjh0S9PFA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b9c:b0:456:fc1:c26d with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4562e8a1e95mr202975545e9.2.1753088217258; Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.241] (178-119-85-231.access.telenet.be. [178.119.85.231]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4563b5c8b3bsm92345745e9.15.2025.07.21.01.56.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <596384f8-580c-4f72-ad3a-5f517be60b16@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:56:56 +0200 Precedence: bulk list-help: list-post: List-Id: internals.lists.php.net x-ms-reactions: disallow MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks To: Nick Cc: php internals References: <1e8634d7-ac1a-4025-b4e2-1948aabf5251@app.fastmail.com> <13B58381-AA61-4D38-A688-DD9E367ADE6F@nicksdot.dev> <96e0ea70-291e-4f0a-b449-acbaef16c099@bastelstu.be> <76059dd0-d27a-4207-9460-658175f54a99@app.fastmail.com> <5A1B6BCB-97AC-4D50-A38C-C7EE394E4EE1@nicksdot.dev> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: dossche.niels@gmail.com (Niels Dossche) On 21/07/2025 10:29, Nick wrote: > @Niels > I saw you voted “no” for `set`. > I double checked the full RFC discussion. You didn’t  participate at all until the very end.  > Both mails were on a meta-level. None one your mails had any arguments which would justify your vote. > I don’t understand your vote. Would you mind to elaborate? Hi Nick The vote for me was lost at the proposal itself, not the discussion. Property hooks left a bit of a bitter aftertaste for me, we're still fixing opcache bugs regarding property hooks today, and we had a particularly bad bug with the JIT where the JIT made some assumptions that were broken because hooks could override properties. We also regularly get reports on php-src of people being confused by some of the behaviours of hooks. Combine that with readonly, another complex feature, and I find it hard to be in favour of any of this. While I think it's still a great feature, it also proved to be much more complex than initially thought, and it also shows that features interact in unexpected ways with each other. For me, the mental model of readonly is already complicated, and the hooks are too, combine the two and you get IMO unintuitive behaviour regarding immutability etc. Anyway, this is not a new argument. > As a new participant, I have difficulties to understand these kind of “politics” here. For me there is no politics at play regarding my vote. For a large chunk of RFCs, I actually don't even vote. For this one, I decided long ago. > What was this six weeks discussion exactly for if decisions apparently are taken in “other channels” that are not the officially documented ones? The decision for me was made on my own. There was one brief discussion in the PHPF Slack that Larry started, I briefly joined in there and there I told him about the mental model issue that I described above. A few others also were not happy with the complicated mental model. > > Thank you. > > *Cheers,* > Nick > > Kind regards Niels