Hey Tim,
Thank you. It would probably make sense to create a separate copy of the
> current version of the branch, possibly creating separate PR and then to
> drop the unrelated commits from #9497 - or alternatively picking the
> first 4 commits and creating a new clean PR from that. The latter
Hi
On 1/20/23 17:54, Máté Kocsis wrote:
Sorry for the confusion! The PR contains an implementation for the "clone
with" indeed
just because it builds on top of some specifics of the 2nd proposal in the
"Readonly amendments" RFC. However,
the first few (4) commits are related to allowing
Hi Claude, Tim,
One shortcoming around readonly classes that I just figured out, is that it
> is not possible to use them as anonymous class:
>
Nice catch! As you wrote, it's indeed an oversight of the readonly class
implementation. Fortunately, we already have a PR with the fix. :)
I'm
Hi
On 1/19/23 09:01, Máté Kocsis wrote:
As discussion apparently stalled, and since we managed to update the RFC
with the recently brought up arguments, we would like to start the vote
soon, possibly early next week, unless someone finds a new topic to discuss.
I'm confused by the linked PRs
> Le 19 janv. 2023 à 10:12, Claude Pache a écrit :
>
>
>
>> Le 19 janv. 2023 à 09:01, Máté Kocsis a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> As discussion apparently stalled, and since we managed to update the RFC
>> with the recently brought up arguments, we would like to start the vote
>> soon,
> Le 19 janv. 2023 à 09:01, Máté Kocsis a écrit :
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As discussion apparently stalled, and since we managed to update the RFC
> with the recently brought up arguments, we would like to start the vote
> soon, possibly early next week, unless someone finds a new topic to
Hi Everyone,
As discussion apparently stalled, and since we managed to update the RFC
with the recently brought up arguments, we would like to start the vote
soon, possibly early next week, unless someone finds a new topic to discuss.
Máté
Larry Garfield ezt írta (időpont: 2022. nov. 30.,
Sze,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 9:46 AM, Deleu wrote:
> After reading GPB, Nicolas, Jordan and Larry's considerations, I no longer
> have any objections to this RFC. Here is my summary of it all:
>
> - It's very easy for everyone to wrongly interpret readonly as somewhat
> immutable, but it isn't
After reading GPB, Nicolas, Jordan and Larry's considerations, I no longer
have any objections to this RFC. Here is my summary of it all:
- It's very easy for everyone to wrongly interpret readonly as somewhat
immutable, but it isn't (docs/education issue)
- LSP is about the writer of the child
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 at 23:06, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 23:56 G. P. B., wrote:
>
>> As all the invariants will be maintained in the child classes
>>
> The invariant here is the immutability from a behavioural PoV.
> LSP has 100% been broken in that example.
>
I've gone back
The code that Marco (Pivetta) shared was supposed to illustrate how
readonly classes can be useful to enforce some invariants on child classes.
Yet, here is another implementation that does use a readonly child class,
but still provides the behavior that was supposedly prevented by the
keyword:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, at 6:35 PM, Jordan LeDoux wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 3:40 PM Deleu wrote:
>
>>
>> As I think more about this, there's nothing about the current RFC in this
>> code sample. What's breaking LSP here is the child class doing state
>> modification, not PHP. To further
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 3:40 PM Deleu wrote:
>
> As I think more about this, there's nothing about the current RFC in this
> code sample. What's breaking LSP here is the child class doing state
> modification, not PHP. To further expand that rationale, PHP allows us to
> create child classes.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:47 AM Marco Pivetta wrote:
> ```php
>
> /* readonly */ class ImmutableCounter {
> public function __construct(private readonly int $count) {}
> public function add1(): self { return new self($this->count + 1); }
> public function value(): int { return
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 23:56 G. P. B., wrote:
>
> As all the invariants will be maintained in the child classes
>
> The invariant here is the immutability from a behavioural PoV.
LSP has 100% been broken in that example.
>
>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 14:47, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Hey Máté,
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 07:30, Máté Kocsis wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Following Nicolas' thread about "Issues with readonly classes" (
> > https://externals.io/message/118554), we created an RFC to fix two
> issues
> >
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022, 20:45 Máté Kocsis, wrote:
> We proposed this change because it wouldn't break anything that's already
> not "broken".
>
That's quite a terrible rationale, TBH
>
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, 4:45 PM Máté Kocsis wrote:
> We proposed this change because it wouldn't break anything that's already
> not "broken".
>
> Regards:
> Máté
>
The example provided already raised some eyebrows from people. I think the
argument of "let's furthet enhance this 'broken'
Hi Marco,
Sorry for the very late reply!
As explained in
> https://github.com/lcobucci/jwt/pull/979#discussion_r1025280053, a
> consumer relying on a `readonly`
>
implementation of a class probably also expects replacement implementations
> as read-only.
> I am aware that we lack the `readonly`
Hey Máté,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 07:30, Máté Kocsis wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Following Nicolas' thread about "Issues with readonly classes" (
> https://externals.io/message/118554), we created an RFC to fix two issues
> with the readonly behavior: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments
>
On 15 November 2022 19:23:44 GMT, "Máté Kocsis" wrote:
>I didn't bother to add a separate example for explicit readonly properties,
>because I mainly regard
>readonly classes as a shorthand for adding the readonly modifier for all
>properties
My two cents: examples are cheap, misunderstandings
Hi Rowan and Alexandru,
I'm not totally clear what this sentence is saying:
>
> > Reinitialization can only take place /during/ the |__clone()| magic
> method call, no matter if the actual assignment happens in a different
> method or function invoked inside |__clone()|.
>
> Are you saying that
Hi Mate,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:30 AM Máté Kocsis wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Following Nicolas' thread about "Issues with readonly classes" (
> https://externals.io/message/118554), we created an RFC to fix two issues
> with the readonly behavior: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments
On 15/11/2022 06:30, Máté Kocsis wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Following Nicolas' thread about "Issues with readonly classes" (
https://externals.io/message/118554), we created an RFC to fix two issues
with the readonly behavior:https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments
Please let us know your
Hi Everyone,
Following Nicolas' thread about "Issues with readonly classes" (
https://externals.io/message/118554), we created an RFC to fix two issues
with the readonly behavior: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments
Please let us know your thoughts!
Máté
25 matches
Mail list logo
