Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50858
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4CFBDA09.2020902@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:29:29 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
CC: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <f9e85836d9f401e78d6a045116c6f5e0@beberlei.de>
In-Reply-To: <f9e85836d9f401e78d6a045116c6f5e0@beberlei.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Patch: Marking DateTime Instances Immutable
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> I propose to allow to work with DateTime objects that are marked as
> immutable optionally. This means that all methods add, sub, modify,

I think it's a bad idea, which would instantly break all the code that 
assumes different semantics. Yes, I noticed the word optional, however, 
the code accepting DateTime assumes some semantics, and had no means to 
reject object with different semantics, and combining two semantics in 
one class is a bad idea.

On the other hand, you can create DateTimeValue object, which can do 
what you want. I'd imagine it'd be quite easy to do in user space too. 
If enough people feel they need it then it can be brought into the 
extension too.

> I also talked to Derick about this and he agrees that immutable DateTime
> objects would be desirable. I have talked to many other people who agreed
> that the current behavior is weird.

I've talked to many people who agree it isn't ;)
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227