Hi Am 2025-06-09 17:11, schrieb Larry Garfield:
I also fleshed out the __get mention with an example that shows what you can already do today, and in fact could since 8.1 when readonly was introduced. The hard guarantee of idempotency has never actually been there. (This also speaks to Claude's concern.)
I don't think this really resolves Claude's concern. While it is certainly true that the guarantees do not currently hold, I don't believe this is strong enough of a reason not to provide for stronger guarantees in a *newly introduced feature*. The point of property hooks is for me that “dynamic properties” are easier to reason about compared to `__get()`. As a user when accessing a proper `readonly` property, I do not want to check if there is a property hook that might result in non-readonly behavior. As an engine developer I want to be able to optimize based on the `readonly`-ness of a property. Without such guarantees, the “readonly” keyword does not provide value to me.
I also believe the LazyProduct example to be broken, since lazy-loading individual properties might result in an object that is internally consistent if the database changes in-between.
Best regards Tim Düsterhus
