On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 19:59, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *snip* > Hi Larry and Ilija, > > Thanks for your work. Here is my opinion: > > First, I do think that `readonly` should integrate with aviz, unless that > implies truly controversial changes on `readonly`. As Theodore Brown > commented in the previous version of the RFC: “Proposal feels unfinished > since it can't be used in conjunction with readonly properties/classes. In > my opinion the issues with this need to be resolved first, to avoid the > language moving towards a messy hodgepodge of features that don't work well > together.” > > Second, I think that making `readonly` implicitly `protected(set)` by > default (Option 2) is the way to go: > * At first glance it is an expectation change. But, in reality, all > readonly properties can *already* be written to from a child class as of > today: it suffices that the child class in question redeclare those > properties: https://3v4l.org/9AV4r. From the point of view of the child > class, the only thing that will change, is that it will no longer be > required to explicitly opt into that possibility by redeclaring the > readonly properties. From the point of view of the parent class, nothing > will change, except false expectations—and it is a good thing that false > expectations are eliminated. > * Relatively of Options 3 and 4, Option 2 leaves the language in a more > simple and regular state. > > —Claude > > > Hello everyone, I've been seeing readonly bashed/blamed/being roadblock, etc, etc as in the implementation ended up being sloppy and blocking other things or making things hard... While I know BC is king and stuff, why not just say "yes, this was designed badly and we will redo it" and just do it? While there's not yet an absolute boatload of that code out there when it would be absolutely massive BC break? Don't repeat the mistakes of the old days :D Cause the impression I'm getting any significant RFC now has to work around the readonly's sloppy implementation and there's a bigger and bigger section on that with each next RFC when there's more and more advanced features for the OOP part of things. -- Arvīds Godjuks +371 26 851 664 arvids.godj...@gmail.com Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius
