2016-09-04 10:55 GMT+02:00 Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com>:
> Hi Chris!
>
> On 9/3/2016 5:00 PM, Chris Riley wrote:
> > - Properties can be declared immutable. Immutable properties may only be
> > changed under two circumstances: a) In the objects constructor b) If they
> > are null (This enables setter injection if required)
> >
>
> The constraint b) would make the object mutable and defeat the purpose
> of the immutable modifier since any property could change at any time if
> it was NULL at the beginning. Requiring syncing in concurrent environments.
>
> On 9/3/2016 5:00 PM, Chris Riley wrote:
> > - Arrays assigned to immutable properties would not be possible to change
> >
>
> Array support would definitely be very nice. I mean, we have constant
> arrays already, hence, it is possible.
>
> On 9/3/2016 5:00 PM, Chris Riley wrote:
> > - Objects assigned to immutable properties would be possible to change,
> so
> > long as the same object remained assigned to the property.
> >
>
> This would once more lead to mutability and the constraint of
> immutability would be violated.
>
> On 9/3/2016 5:00 PM, Chris Riley wrote:
> > From a developer adoption point of view, I think these two points are
> > important to making immutable classes generally useful. Without 1, it
> will
> > be a nuisance to use 3rd party libraries esp those which retain
> > compatibility for PHP < 7.2. Without 2 you block the ability to use
> setter
> > injection, which I personally would be in favour of if it meant that devs
> > stopped using it - it wouldn't - they would simply not use immutable
> > classes, loosing the benefits thereof.
> >
>
> The adoption of the feature will be halted until 7.2 is widely available
> in bigger projects. That is most certainly right. However, we should aim
> for the best, most useful, and future proof solution and not towards the
> one that's adopted very fast but lacks some important constraints.
> Having truly immutable objects is required in concurrent scenarios and
> such scenarios are in the future for PHP and not in the past.
>
> Regarding setter injection: I do not see the need for it at all in the
> context of immutable objects. In the end we are talking about value
> objects here and they should not have any optional dependencies. Maybe
> you could come up with a use case to illustrate the need?
>
> On 9/3/2016 5:00 PM, Chris Riley wrote:
> > Dealing with the clone issue some of my ideas since then were:
> >
> > - Seal/Unseal (As per Larry's suggestion)
> > - Parameters to __clone; in this instance the clone method would be
> allowed
> > to change properties of the object as well as the constructor. This feels
> > like it may breach the principal of least surprise as cloning an object
> no
> > longer guarantees an exact copy.
> > - A new magic method __mutate($property, $newvalue) called instead of a
> > fatal error when a property is changed. This probably lays too many traps
> > for developers for it to be a good idea.
> > - Implicitly returning a new object whenever a property is changed.
> Similar
> > reservations to the above.
> > - A new magic method __with($newInstance, $args) and a keyword with that
> is
> > used in place of clone eg $x = $y with ($arg1, $arg2); in this instance,
> > __with receives a clone of $y (after calling __clone) and an array
> [$arg1,
> > $arg2] the with magic method is allowed to mutate $newInstance and must
> > return it. This is currently my favoured solution
> >
>
> How does one know which property is to be mutated in the __with method?
> You should also not underestimate the performance hit and the branching
> since you only want to change the properties that changed based on the
> data from the passed array.
>
> I have a third proposal after giving this some more thought. Inspired by
> Rust's approach to mark mutation explicitly.
>
> final immutable class ValueObject {
>
> public $value;
>
> public mutator [function] withValue($clone, $value): static {
> $clone->value = $value;
> }
>
> }
>
>
Providing `mutator` | `mut` keyword as method modifier sounds liek a good
idea,
althought passing `$clone` parameter as first additional param could break
method declaration and would be misleading.
Assuming mutator method is designed to return mutated clone of immutable
object
having `$clone` variable could be handled internally without breaking
method declaration.
Such variable could be unlocked while in mutator method and locked on
return.
I was thinking about additional check if such mutator returns `$clone` but
not `$this`
but I don't see the need of it - assuming there is no what to change in some
circumstances ther would be also possible to return `$this`.
The return type declaration `self` could increase readability, but should
not be required,
as some developers doesn't already use return types.
> A mutator function always receives the mutable clone as first argument
> and always returns that one. Users can have a return but they must
> return the clone (hence the static return type declaration).
>
> $vo1 = new ValueObject(1);
> $vo2 = $vo1->withValue(2);
>
> Calls are of course without the clone as it is handled by the engine.
> There is no special branching necessary and no performance hit at all
> while the logic is kept in the place where it is required.
>
> --
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
>
>
--
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
brzuchalski.com
