Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130128
Message-ID: <6def7a03-eba4-4289-ac4f-0881c5d4c092@bastelstu.be>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 19:14:50 +0100
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow Reassignment of Promoted Readonly
 Properties in Constructor
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAOWwgp=JtbTSVCv9z=QGx9yS=8G72L-hcAjcOj33eEMLB0zfvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sJMXmDixLPO91P5d+5V28zhu0TVVfLxBKSUfF41JtYjkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpnToAqGN=_bj9JB8gj-2PO9gqq2SgFYYg6LmPTSmCyQ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4b74f9a1-96d2-4104-abdd-fe56c5e7016c@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpnrnk-a6uczGnuE76rpd9mZvwXs=SHwuo+-4fWgLm9Jcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <585bfc82-a522-43ec-be42-b8945952fe8b@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpn-agceHfEvRhyU0UEJCCif=6znH15=-m2B8ScEngUcEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a5f91ba2-2fad-4e46-a4a7-a597972cf460@bastelstu.be>
 <CAOWwgpmCMJxcqsyc7WXc90M1fvUhY6_3aa8P63bNJMPLR=ke0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3cd0d869-5a5b-467c-8eb4-3f8647ba7aa7@bastelstu.be>
 <CAOWwgpm14su1A_pGFys29h0p+nzM6CLBWBYFSWLAjA2Gm93DNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgpm14su1A_pGFys29h0p+nzM6CLBWBYFSWLAjA2Gm93DNg@mail.gmail.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

On 2/19/26 10:49, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Thanks, I've added new test cases to cover this.
> I've also improved tests as suggested on the PR.
> And finally I updated the implementation to reuse IS_PROP_REINITABLE
> instead of adding new flags + use an approach that doesn't require walking
> the call stack.
> PR and RFC updated accordingly, all green.

Thank you. The implementation looks much simpler now and the tests all 
make sense to me and I can't think of any other relevant “edge case”.

I have one more comment regarding the RFC text, which should result in 
“minor” changes as per the policy of making clarifying changes:

1. “Set in child before parent::__construct()” also fails, since the 
property slot is not yet initialized:

That explanation and example does not seem to be quite correct: It's not 
the `$this->x = 'C';` assignment that fails, it's the implicit CPP 
assignment when calling parent::__construct(). The explanation should be 
fixed and the `// Error: Cannot modify readonly property P::$x` comment 
should be moved to the `parent::__construct()` call.

The test in the implementation was already correct.

Other than that, I don't have any further comments and I believe 
everything relevant is mentioned. Personally I'm likely to “Abstain” 
from the vote for the same reasons that Bob previously mentioned.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus