Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130155
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:03:40 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <e70555fd-aca4-46cf-bfe1-e85c4191c38a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOWwgpmp7xhWCmm95f0C=mG1m71inOW4wV9R_yjHTOokVcTb2w@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <CAOWwgpmp7xhWCmm95f0C=mG1m71inOW4wV9R_yjHTOokVcTb2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow Reassignment of Promoted Readonly Properties in
 Constructor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026, at 1:49 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Le dim. 22 f=C3=A9vr. 2026 =C3=A0 19:14, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@baste=
lstu.be> a =C3=A9crit :
>> Hi
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Thank you. The implementation looks much simpler now and the tests al=
l=20
>> make sense to me and I can't think of any other relevant =E2=80=9Cedg=
e case=E2=80=9D.
>>=20
>> I have one more comment regarding the RFC text, which should result i=
n=20
>> =E2=80=9Cminor=E2=80=9D changes as per the policy of making clarifyin=
g changes:
>>=20
>> 1. =E2=80=9CSet in child before parent::__construct()=E2=80=9D also f=
ails, since the=20
>> property slot is not yet initialized:
>>=20
>> That explanation and example does not seem to be quite correct: It's =
not=20
>> the `$this->x =3D 'C';` assignment that fails, it's the implicit CPP=20
>> assignment when calling parent::__construct(). The explanation should=
 be=20
>> fixed and the `// Error: Cannot modify readonly property P::$x` comme=
nt=20
>> should be moved to the `parent::__construct()` call.
>>=20
>> The test in the implementation was already correct.
>>=20
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Good catch thanks, wording updated!
> The RFC is ready then. Any other comments from anyone else?
>
> Nicolas

Two minor non-substantive points.

1. The "supported operations" section all the way at the bottom seems re=
dundant.  That was already specified earlier.

2. It could be helpful to include an example of using property hooks in =
the intro; there's an example of the other 2 options, but not of hooks, =
which are also mentioned as a not-always-ideal alternative.  (Let me kno=
w if you want help or suggestions with that example.)

Otherwise, I'm happy with where this ended up.  Thanks!

--Larry Garfield