Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130131
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <6def7a03-eba4-4289-ac4f-0881c5d4c092@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <6def7a03-eba4-4289-ac4f-0881c5d4c092@bastelstu.be>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 08:49:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOWwgpmp7xhWCmm95f0C=mG1m71inOW4wV9R_yjHTOokVcTb2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow Reassignment of Promoted Readonly
 Properties in Constructor
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b45ef064b7903dc"
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--0000000000009b45ef064b7903dc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le dim. 22 f=C3=A9vr. 2026 =C3=A0 19:14, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.=
be> a =C3=A9crit :

> 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 =E2=80=9Cedge ca=
se=E2=80=9D.
>
> I have one more comment regarding the RFC text, which should result in
> =E2=80=9Cminor=E2=80=9D changes as per the policy of making clarifying ch=
anges:
>
> 1. =E2=80=9CSet in child before parent::__construct()=E2=80=9D 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 `$this->x =3D 'C';` assignment that fails, it's the implicit CPP
> assignment when calling parent::__construct(). The explanation should be
> fixed and the `// Error: Cannot modify readonly property P::$x` comment
> should be moved to the `parent::__construct()` call.
>
> The test in the implementation was already correct.
>
>
Hi Tim,

Good catch thanks, wording updated!
The RFC is ready then. Any other comments from anyone else?

Nicolas

--0000000000009b45ef064b7903dc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0dim. 22=
 f=C3=A9vr. 2026 =C3=A0=C2=A019:14, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus &lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:tim@bastelstu.be">tim@bastelstu.be</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi<br>
<br>
On 2/19/26 10:49, Nicolas Grekas wrote:<br>
&gt; Thanks, I&#39;ve added new test cases to cover this.<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve also improved tests as suggested on the PR.<br>
&gt; And finally I updated the implementation to reuse IS_PROP_REINITABLE<b=
r>
&gt; instead of adding new flags + use an approach that doesn&#39;t require=
 walking<br>
&gt; the call stack.<br>
&gt; PR and RFC updated accordingly, all green.<br>
<br>
Thank you. The implementation looks much simpler now and the tests all <br>
make sense to me and I can&#39;t think of any other relevant =E2=80=9Cedge =
case=E2=80=9D.<br>
<br>
I have one more comment regarding the RFC text, which should result in <br>
=E2=80=9Cminor=E2=80=9D changes as per the policy of making clarifying chan=
ges:<br>
<br>
1. =E2=80=9CSet in child before parent::__construct()=E2=80=9D also fails, =
since the <br>
property slot is not yet initialized:<br>
<br>
That explanation and example does not seem to be quite correct: It&#39;s no=
t <br>
the `$this-&gt;x =3D &#39;C&#39;;` assignment that fails, it&#39;s the impl=
icit CPP <br>
assignment when calling parent::__construct(). The explanation should be <b=
r>
fixed and the `// Error: Cannot modify readonly property P::$x` comment <br=
>
should be moved to the `parent::__construct()` call.<br>
<br>
The test in the implementation was already correct.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Tim,</div><div><br></div><div>Good =
catch thanks, wording updated!</div><div>The RFC is ready then. Any other c=
omments from anyone else?</div><div><br></div><div>Nicolas=C2=A0</div></div=
></div>

--0000000000009b45ef064b7903dc--