> On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:12, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote: > > Pierre, I rarely disagree with you, but this is one such case. > > It is true that we can look at this as a partial solution to a bigger > problem, or as you said - a baby step. However, I see this as the > perfect solution for a very narrow, yet also a very common problem, > and I don't see it blocking a more abstract solution in the future.
That’s basically my thoughts on this RFC. I think it’s still quite useful even if it’s not as useful as it could be without certain other additions. > > From a userland POV, it is simple, very effective and there's > practically no way to achieve the same goal with less amount of code. > > In short - it's no panacea to all the limitations that we currently > have on property management, but it is still *extremely* useful for > implementing classes that only need to have getters. It’s also faster! > On another note, I share Nikita's concern about using the "readonly" > keyword and I'd love that to be improved, but the best alternative I > could think of is "readable" and IMO it doesn't have a clearer > meaning. Yeah, that’s the problem. It is somewhat unclear, but any other keyword choice is even more confusing. I discussed this quite a bit in StackOverflow’s PHP chatroom (http://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/11/php) and couldn’t come up with anything better. Also, as I note in the RFC, we already use readonly in the docs for some classes, and for C#-style only-set-once read-only properties, we could use final or immutable. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
