On 05/04/2024 09:37, Saki Takamachi wrote:
Hi Barney,
Ah ok. Maybe that's the standard way internal classes are written, and we can
consider it generally an error for a child class to override the constructor
without calling `parent::__construct()`. I know tools warn users not to forget
the parent call.
Thanks, A fallback would be possible to always set the initial value to 0, but
an error would probably be easier to understand.
Uninitialized is miles better than 0 I think. 0 is a meaningful number
just like any other and we should very strictly avoid inserting made up
numbers into people's applications. Let them fail fast, not output fake
data. I'd rather my web shop crashes than gives things away for free.
And I had been thinking of BcNum as a readonly class, but I see it's not an
readonly class, it's a mutable class with its one and only property being
readonly. I agree that it seems unnecessary to force child classes to be
immutable - I wasn't concerned about them adding additional, mutable,
properties, only about leaving the value property uninitialized. (Btw I would
have supported the 1st part of the 2022 Readonly amendments RFC, which I think
would have made a readonly class behave the same as a class where every
property is readonly, particularly since would have allowed implementing the
example given on the Wikipedia page for LSP: a circle with fixed centre and
mutable radius may inherit from an immutable point)
Ah, sorry about that, I completely forgot about the readonly class! In that
case, it might make sense to make the classes completely immutable, since users
are already accustomed to using such classes.
This is a departure from what I said in my previous email, but how do you think
about making it a read-only class?
Tim has convinced me that it should be a final class, in which case
there's no meaningful distinction between a readonly class and a class
with no mutable properties. In that case just for simplicity I'd say it
should be a readonly class.
If it's not a final class I think I'm not the right person to ask, since
as I said I don't really like the fact that a readonly class behaves any
differently to a class with no mutable properties. I prefer the behavior
of the latter.
