On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:53 AM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023, at 10:04 PM, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2023, 19:39 Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:22 PM, Máté Kocsis wrote: > >> > To be honest, the current behavior seemed like the natural choice for > >> > me, and I didn't really consider to execute the __clone() method after > >> the > >> > clone assignments. > >> > Do you have a use-case in mind when you need to forward-pass > information > >> to > >> > __clone()? > >> > >> Not a specific one off hand. It's more a conceptual question. `with` > has > >> more contextual awareness than __clone(), so it should have "first > crack" > >> at the operation, so that if necessary it can make changes that > __clone() > >> can then respond to. The inverse doesn't make sense. > >> > >> The only reason for `with` to come after would be to allow `with` to > >> "override" or "undo" something that __clone() did. Generally speaking, > if > >> you have to undo something you just did, you shouldn't have done it in > the > >> first place, so that's a less compelling combination. > >> > >> This one isn't a deal breaker, but we should be sure to think it through > >> as it's kinda hard to reverse later. > >> > > > > To me so far also it was natural to assume that __clone is first and only > > after that the rest of the operations. > > But `with` operations, be it properties assignment or even a closure, > would > > run in the context of the caller of clone and sometimes this might be run > > not from a method of the cloned class. > > > > An example: > > There is a class that represents persons of a fictive country/planet. > > Each person has many properties but has also a first name and a last name > > and there is a rule: the two names must not start with the same letter. > > Both names cannot be changed as they are defined readonly. > > Creation of new persons can be done using new for new random properties > or > > using clone to preserve existing properties. But in both cases the first > > name and last name are randomly chosen. > > If we want to control the last name value during clone that would be > > possible using the `with` operation but the logic to allocate a first > name > > will only happen in `__clone()`method. > > > > To be able to achieve this we must have __clone last, as there we have > the > > internal validations, operations and also access to private/protected > > members that are not accesible from where clone is being called. > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > I... could not understand that in the slightest. Can you show it in code? > > Sorry for that. Here you go: https://3v4l.org/JIBoI/rfc#vgit.master If __clone would be first, there is no way to enforce the rule that a person cannot have their first name starting with the same letter as last name. Regards, Alex
