Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 20:30, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 18:22, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> a > écrit : > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote: >> > > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties: >> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2 >> > > > >> > > > This proposal is similar to the >> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been >> > > declined >> > > > previously. One significant difference is that the new RFC limits >> the >> > > scope >> > > > of initializing assignments. I think a key mistake of the previous >> RFC >> > > was >> > > > the confusing "write-once" framing, which is both technically >> correct and >> > > > quite irrelevant. >> > > > >> > > > Please see the rationale section ( >> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2#rationale) for how >> this >> > > > proposal relates to other RFCs and alternatives. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I plan to open voting on this RFC soon. I don't think there's anything >> > > technical left to address here, the discussion mostly comes down to a >> value >> > > judgement. I think everyone has made their position regarding that >> clear... >> > > >> > >> > Actually, we talked off the list about a way to possibly make this work >> > with __clone(): >> > >> > We could allow __clone to have one argument, the object being cloned. >> And >> > when the signature declares this argument, then all readonly properties >> > would be set as uninitialized on $this. >> > >> > A typical __clone function would look like this with readonly >> properties: >> > function __clone(object $original) >> > { >> > $this->readonlyProp = clone $original->readonlyProp; >> > } >> > >> > That would turn my vote into a +1 if that could be made to work! >> >> That sounds like it would support deep cloning, but not with-er methods. >> There's no way to provide a changed value. It also would mean a lot of >> work on larger objects to transfer across all the properties. I don't >> really see what this would add. >> > > Can you elaborate about the lack of support for withers? Having some work > to do doesn't look like an issue to me, especially when there is no > alternative to compare that too. > I sent that too fast, I agree about withers... :) I'm looking for a way to +1 that RFC... Any other idea?
