Hi
On 7/18/25 17:49, Rob Landers wrote:
Wasn’t that the entire point of readonly classes? Because it was painful to
write readonly for every property.
It was certainly *one point*, but not the *entire* point. Quoting from
the RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_classes):
"it's still not easy to declare (quasi-)immutable classes"
and then further:
"it will prevent the creation of dynamic properties"
and
"a readonly class can only extend a readonly parent"
So the point of the RFC is not "adding readonly for every property is
verbose", but "I want to be able to define immutable classes", which, as
I outlined before, is something different.
The behavior of the class doesn’t magically change. Or, at least, I hope it
doesn’t.
The behavior of the class changes, since dynamic properties will now be
legal. It also breaks any child classes, since child classes of
non-readonly classes may not be readonly (not even if all properties are
already readonly). The behavior doesn't change magically, though, it
changes due to the intentional removal of the `readonly` keyword on the
class.
Unless I missed something. Hooks are fancy methods? There is nothing intrinsic
about object properties. There is nothing that says two calls to the same
property’s getters are going to result in the same values. There is
asynchronous php, declare ticks, etc. especially in the case of globals, there
is no guarantee you even have the same object. At the end of the day, it is up
to the programmer building that system / program to provide those guarantees—
not the language.
I agree with both Eric's response to this paragraph.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
