Hi Nicolas, Larry, Mate, WDYT? >
When I was working on the readonly class RFC, I realized that the readonly keyword very naturally fits services besides value objects. So my expectation has been that until we can fix the issue with cloning, people would mainly apply readonly to services. Not that it is very useful, but I would also feel some kind of weird fulfillment by doing so. Regarding cloning: I created a WIP PR not long ago to fix the aforementioned cloning issue, and I'll pursue a readonly amendment RFC in the coming weeks (or month) containing the long awaited improvements for cloning (hopefully together with the "clone with" construct) and possibly with this inheritance-related change Nicolas proposed, unless someone can come up with an ultimate counter-argument. Regards: Máté
