Hi,
I was looking at the current vote of this RFC and I stumbled upon
Theodore's remark that the RFC feels unfinished as it can't be used in
conjunction with readonly properties/classes.
The RFC disallows (for the time being) the mixing of readonly with
explicit asymmetric visibility. And I was happy about it. Thus I didn't
feel the need to comment about it so far.
The main motivation given in the readonly RFC was value objects. And as
far as I understand, one of the main reasons was to reduce boilerplate
code (esp. public getters). readonly works fine for value objects. But
looking at entities, there is no solution so far. Thus I still (might)
need to provide public getters. And because of the limitations of
readonly, there was/is a need for asymmetric visibility.
I doubt, there would be any need for readonly if we would have had
asymmetric visibility first. And (using asymmetric visibility) I assume,
developers should be able to ensure that a property is 1. only
initialized once, 2. inside the limited scope of a class, and 3. not
overwritten during the lifetime of the object. I'd be interested in a
use case where you would really like to ensure this on the engine level.
To go one step further, I would even ask the heretical question if we
should discourage/deprecate readonly once we have asymmetric visibility. ;-)
Regards
Thomas
Am 07.01.23 um 00:37 schrieb Larry Garfield:
I am hereby opening the vote on the Asymmetric Visibility RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/asymmetric-visibility
Voting will be open for 2 weeks.
While we would certainly prefer if everyone voted in favor, for those who vote
against the authors kindly request that you indicate why, using the second poll
question or comment section afterward. Thank you.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
