> > > 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 >
broken. see thread >
