Hi
On 7/17/24 20:31, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
A bit unrelated to the above topic: we've further clarified the RFC by
addition restrictions to what can be done with lazy proxies. Namely, when
the factory returns an object from a parent class, we describe that adding
more on the proxy class would throw, and we also explain why. We also added
a restriction to prevent a proxy from having an overridden __clone or
__destruct when the factory returns a parent, and explained why again.
Note that in the RFC you typoed it as '__destructor' ('or' suffix).
Please let us know if anyone has other concerns.
I've replied regarding the cloning semantics in an earlier email.
Regarding the `reset*()` methods even with the additional examples I
remain unconvinced that this is not only necessary to work around
existing design issues in userland libraries. However I guess that we
will not reach an agreement here and I also do not consider myself the
target audience of this RFC. I'm just here to find edge cases :-)
Except for the cloning semantics I cannot find any obvious problems with
the described semantics.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
