Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly properties

2021-06-04 Thread Matthew Brown
This is a great idea! Might be worth mentioning that Psalm already supports a `@readonly` docblock annotation (first suggested by Nuno Maduro), and it matches the proposed behaviour (though Psalm doesn't currently prevent inheritance issues): Example: https://psalm.dev/r/7ed5872738 On Fri, 4 Jun

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly properties

2021-06-04 Thread Pierre
Le 04/06/2021 à 17:34, Pierre a écrit : Le 04/06/2021 à 17:19, Nikita Popov a écrit : Hi internals, I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2 This proposal is similar to the https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that ha

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly properties

2021-06-04 Thread Pierre
Le 04/06/2021 à 17:19, Nikita Popov a écrit : Hi internals, I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2 This proposal is similar to the https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been declined previously. One significa

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly properties

2021-06-04 Thread Nikita Popov
Hi internals, I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2 This proposal is similar to the https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been declined previously. One significant difference is that the new RFC limits the sco

[PHP-DEV] Propagating AVIF support from libgd into PHP's bundled gd

2021-06-04 Thread Ben Morss via internals
Hello, everyone! Earlier this year, I added support for AVIF images to libgd . My ultimate goal was to bring support for this new image format to PHP, so that the world's top CMSs could let sites serve AVIFs. Recently, @Chri

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Adding return types to internal methods

2021-06-04 Thread Máté Kocsis
> This feels a bit different than the class case, in that implementing > internal interfaces is common, while extending internal classes is mostly > an artifact of us not adding enough "final"s in the early days. > I have to admit that this aspect of the feature wasn't accurately covered by RFC, s