Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95900 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70454 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2016 17:41:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Sep 2016 17:41:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=marijic.silvio@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=marijic.silvio@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: marijic.silvio@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.53 mail-oi0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.53] ([209.85.218.53:35749] helo=mail-oi0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 21/42-46544-FC544D75 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:41:36 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w193so13146404oiw.2 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:41:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5EzgX6h8eKiZKS0lLfrPMDgY2S2UhZpZsM8M4BRcsIs=; b=pLQo97kQbfyj1YNomrQERwE8hmkdtuZvM0AI6k3UGAM41UPfJYVy3Ip1DM/TedP3s7 OlSplCVQcR3UHihwvOzwJZ7bWOQfxwijEO+SSItI5fKw4hmfyiaF8XwsrBqQprTXiv45 1rX7XaH85Jv/1DujJK0wG0uX4g7QuYhTSwLB2xiaXZwUKDqzREN8RdLFvDhbwbazT7Pg OMbUHz+Q9HnukWm5bB3Tg/gc90vxsFwFaQSZw2Hq3fxCLZAkCMva5JEsZcVzKIsxyghR Mrodvash8/nx2iIG1mnS+/4HQTk5XfVxXRfoSKvOIibm6j0jo/1qLWu0Lf05uYp9ZkTh FAlw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5EzgX6h8eKiZKS0lLfrPMDgY2S2UhZpZsM8M4BRcsIs=; b=gni2He9zu+TrsjtU6ds7NqFWqB1H6r9Vd+NVMtWKISXtj3rNWjRdL4Kgt8nP7McVeI U7MgS2mhnv3UJgWYl1eyQ1ihLASPXzfDMjK8SUnsr51+7/SnIs9KbkbeodpHEMutZFPk SRmhXhQR1bXDf+3meKWwKnYjPUY6lc6EBccXHQ+E5nZT1HZ5Jr3goETvSpV37nZvGwE7 s74/0Y/C8Lq8xCvhRqRXQskd0zabaMZMh4Cq+tIyDtIS43rUhixmjAROEJDgGqhJKZRC gmDQsa9pwNM7+U3UmJLOv11STBpHYc/w4jdq1fI/mWCdeFQi8BC4gQ98deuVAR5fyv2K RJ9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOPoRSv78+SwFNbf7BV4jmV5G1JZEsYnyOmyp4iGpVqYheUuUXuHd9Op9QOCdYHXNhNeb22nSP/Vp0Shw== X-Received: by 10.202.81.19 with SMTP id f19mr2324275oib.162.1473529292152; Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.207.134 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.207.134 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <95832b08-ee80-18c1-a3da-202eed51903e@fleshgrinder.com> References: <642a6e78-90ea-cbf0-ec1c-376c24e568c5@fleshgrinder.com> <0800a5ca-3d14-c541-1a1a-2574ec802b8c@fleshgrinder.com> <83fa661e-2d3d-6548-a506-fb969be31c0e@garfieldtech.com> <56acc1d9-f424-a460-59be-3a9a1a74b198@fleshgrinder.com> <95832b08-ee80-18c1-a3da-202eed51903e@fleshgrinder.com> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:41:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP Internals List Cc: Larry Garfield Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b1a4a066fa1053c2ac6d2 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC - Immutable classes From: marijic.silvio@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Silvio_Mariji=C4=87?=) --001a113b1a4a066fa1053c2ac6d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 @Fleshgrinder, While I'm not sure at the moment about CoW, I can agree that we should add immutable keyword as a interface modifier to make sure all classes implementing must be immutable. On Sep 10, 2016 12:55 PM, "Fleshgrinder" wrote: > So? Where are we now? CoW is definitely doable and I personally think > that it's the best approach because the engine has full control that > nothing goes south. I also do not think that it's magic in any way since > developers have to add the _immutable_ keyword explicitly to the class. > That this modifier modifies the behavior should be obvious, _abstract_ > and _interface_ also do that. > > Since I mention _interface_. I've been thinking about it and I would > prefer it if the _immutable_ modifier also works for interfaces. > Interfaces are pure abstract classes after all and they are meant to > define a contract for implementors. I cannot see any good reason why it > should not be allowed to force implementors of an interface to be > immutable; same as with abstract classes. > > Another aspect that we should discuss is how immutable properties should > behave in case we decide for CoW. > > @Larry what do you think about the CoW proposal? > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger > > --001a113b1a4a066fa1053c2ac6d2--