On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 12:10 AM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> Please include this in the RFC.
Done
> The concern is someone calling clone($foo, object: new Thingie()), which
would complain that "object" is defined twice. Making the first argument
named __object sidesteps that issue
> If someone then calls clone(prop: 'new val', __object: $foo), that... I
suppose would technically compile, but one should never do that, and I am
perfectly happy if that breaks. Similar for if someone called clone(prop:
'new val', object: $foo) if we didn't rename that parameter. No one should
be doing that and I am fine if that breaks
Yes. I think we're on the same page here. But just to be clear, I'll
restate it again with my own words:
Whatever the first parameter (the to-be-cloned object) of the clone()
function is called will be completely inaccessible as a property name.
clone($foo, __object: "bar") will fail (Named parameter overwrites previous
argument)
clone($foo, ...["__object" => "bar"]) will also fail.
While `clone(prop: 'new val', __object: $foo)` just works.
For example, using the current implementation where the parameter is named
`object`:
```
class Foo {
public int $bar;
}
$x = new Foo();
var_dump(clone(bar: 5, object: $x));
// object(Foo)#2 (1) {
// ["bar"]=>
// int(5)
// }
```
--
Volker Dusch
Head of Engineering
Tideways GmbH
Königswinterer Str. 116
53227 Bonn
https://tideways.io/imprint
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn
Geschäftsführer: Benjamin Außenhofer (geb. Eberlei)
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 22127
