On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:13 PM Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> a écrit : > > However, this also brings up another interesting issue: readonly properties > (in 8.3) DO allow redeclaration, essentially adjusting the property scope > (the class that declares it) to make the visibility check pass. That is, the > definition of the class it is private to changes, which is different from how > inheritance works elsewhere. When the parent writes to the same property, a > special check is needed to verify the two properties are related. All that > special casing effectively means that readonly in 8.4 wouldn't really be > "write once + private(set)", but "write once + private(set) - final", which > is... just kinda screwy. That means our options are: > > * A BC break on readonly (not allowing it to be overridden) > * Make readonly an exception to the implicit final. > * Just don't allow readonly with aviz after all. > > > Another possible option is: > > * Make readonly be `protected(set)` by default. > > That would weaken the originally intended semantics of readonly, but in a > compatible and acceptable way? > > —Claude > >
I know this doesn't really contribute to the conversation ... but if I could ever mash a +1 on a single email, this is the email I'd choose. "Best elegant solution that happens to delete readonly without deleting readonly" award. Robert Landers Software Engineer Utrecht NL
