On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 11:30, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > > 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. > > > > What's your take about 8.2? As I demonstrated, readonly classes are broken > because of this propagation to child classes. > s/broken/working as expected Marco Pivetta https://twitter.com/Ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/
