Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128156
Message-ID: <EC43104C-76AB-4D5C-985B-1402EA9F52F8@nicksdot.dev>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_93B991BB-3DDC-41A7-9166-92757B57B23B"
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 16:11:39 +0700
In-Reply-To: <596384f8-580c-4f72-ad3a-5f517be60b16@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com>
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>
 <bf4cc2d56f491606d3a3037af1243699@bastelstu.be>
 <13B58381-AA61-4D38-A688-DD9E367ADE6F@nicksdot.dev>
 <96e0ea70-291e-4f0a-b449-acbaef16c099@bastelstu.be>
 <76059dd0-d27a-4207-9460-658175f54a99@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAKz+gELLgydTOh_fA97Z0-XJ1FcseJHq3TTSACp9YTO43+TXpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A1B6BCB-97AC-4D50-A38C-C7EE394E4EE1@nicksdot.dev>
 <ba592eb4-5f93-462f-a7bd-84836e53d3c6@gmail.com>
 <C6F0BC4F-8430-4A0D-8ABF-973608095322@nicksdot.dev>
 <B3487DDF-74C1-497B-B52E-26DF2CB3AF06@nicksdot.dev>
 <596384f8-580c-4f72-ad3a-5f517be60b16@gmail.com>
From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick)


--Apple-Mail=_93B991BB-3DDC-41A7-9166-92757B57B23B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hey Niels,

> On 21. Jul 2025, at 15:56, Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 21/07/2025 10:29, Nick wrote:
>> @Niels
>> I saw you voted =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D for `set`.
>> I double checked the full RFC discussion. You didn=E2=80=99t  =
participate at all until the very end.=20
>> Both mails were on a meta-level. None one your mails had any =
arguments which would justify your vote.
>> I don=E2=80=99t understand your vote. Would you mind to elaborate?
>=20
> Hi Nick
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>>=20
>> Thank you.
>>=20
>> *Cheers,*
>> Nick
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> Kind regards
> Niels
>=20

Thanks for the detailed answer--I get it.
I honestly would have appreciated  to see you hop in with that in the =
earlier state of the RFC.
It would have been more productive from my point of view. Maybe next =
time!

>> As a new participant, I have difficulties to understand these kind of =
=E2=80=9Cpolitics=E2=80=9D here.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> What was this six weeks discussion exactly for if decisions =
apparently are taken in =E2=80=9Cother channels=E2=80=9D that are not =
the officially documented ones?
>=20
> 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.

Neve mind me then. The =E2=80=9Cother channels =E2=80=9C argument =
sounded weird to me because I had no idea what it means. My bad.

--

Thank you.

Cheers,
Nick=

--Apple-Mail=_93B991BB-3DDC-41A7-9166-92757B57B23B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hey Niels,<br =
id=3D"lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div>On 21. Jul 2025, at 15:56, Niels Dossche =
&lt;dossche.niels@gmail.com&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>On 21/07/2025 10:29, Nick =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">@Niels<br>I saw you voted =E2=80=9Cno=E2=
=80=9D for `set`.<br>I double checked the full RFC discussion. You =
didn=E2=80=99t &nbsp;participate at all until the very =
end.&nbsp;<br>Both mails were on a meta-level. None one your mails had =
any arguments which would justify your vote.<br>I don=E2=80=99t =
understand your vote. Would you mind to =
elaborate?<br></blockquote><br>Hi Nick<br><br>The vote for me was lost =
at the proposal itself, not the discussion.<br>Property hooks left a bit =
of a bitter aftertaste for me, we're still fixing opcache bugs regarding =
property hooks today,<br>and we had a particularly bad bug with the JIT =
where the JIT made some assumptions that were broken because hooks could =
override properties.<br>We also regularly get reports on php-src of =
people being confused by some of the behaviours of hooks.<br>Combine =
that with readonly, another complex feature, and I find it hard to be in =
favour of any of this.<br>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<br>interact in unexpected ways with each =
other.<br><br>For me, the mental model of readonly is already =
complicated, and the hooks are too, combine the two and you get IMO =
unintuitive behaviour<br>regarding immutability etc. Anyway, this is not =
a new argument.<br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><br>Thank =
you.<br><br>*Cheers,*<br>Nick<br><br><br></blockquote><br>Kind =
regards<br>Niels<br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Thanks =
for the detailed answer--I get it.</div><div>I honestly would have =
appreciated &nbsp;to see you hop in with that in the earlier state of =
the RFC.</div><div>It would have been more productive from my point of =
view. Maybe next time!</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite">As a new participant, I have =
difficulties to understand these kind of =E2=80=9Cpolitics=E2=80=9D =
here.<br></blockquote><br>For me there is no politics at play regarding =
my vote.<br>For a large chunk of RFCs, I actually don't even =
vote.<br>For this one, I decided long ago.<br><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">What was this six weeks discussion exactly for if =
decisions apparently are taken in =E2=80=9Cother channels=E2=80=9D that =
are not the officially documented ones?<br></blockquote><br>The decision =
for me was made on my own.<br>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.<br>A few others =
also were not happy with the complicated mental =
model.<br></blockquote><br></div><div>Neve mind me then. The =E2=80=9Cothe=
r channels =E2=80=9C argument sounded weird to me because I had no idea =
what it means. My =
bad.</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div><br></div><div>Thank =
you.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Cheers,</b></div><div>Nick</div></body></=
html>=

--Apple-Mail=_93B991BB-3DDC-41A7-9166-92757B57B23B--