> On 9 Jun 2023, at 20:55, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
>> If the property hooks RFC had already passed a vote, I’d suggest that
>> some expansion of hooks could provide a cleaner solution here, but it
>> hasn’t yet (and I understand it’s not desirable to tie the fate of one
>> RFC to another so heavily) so here we are.
>
> You're suggesting some kind of `clone` hook on properties? That would be
> interesting, but definitely out of scope for both RFCs at the moment. :-)
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Hi Larry,
Yes - in the same way that get/set hooks on properties allow much better
alternatives to __get/__set magic methods, a clone hook could provide a better
alternative when cloning (I could see two or three variations of how it might
work that seem intuitive for various “clone” and “clone with” cases).
Agreed, I wasn’t suggesting that it should be attempted as part of this - I was
more referencing that there are other “ugly” magic methods that are
planned/expected to be dramatically improved by a property hook alternative,
and thus IMO “this makes the clone magic method a bit fugly” is of much less
concern long term, compared to “this does stuff the user can’t control and is
non-obvious, but we have to maintain this behaviour ‘forever’ because to change
it would be a BC break"
Cheers
Stephen
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
