On 9/4/2016 2:29 PM, Michał Brzuchalski wrote: >> Providing `mutator` | `mut` keyword as method modifier sounds liek a good >> idea, >> althought passing `$clone` parameter as first additional param could break >> method declaration and would be misleading. >> >> Assuming mutator method is designed to return mutated clone of immutable >> object >> having `$clone` variable could be handled internally without breaking >> method declaration. >> >> Such variable could be unlocked while in mutator method and locked on >> return. >> I was thinking about additional check if such mutator returns `$clone` but >> not `$this` >> but I don't see the need of it - assuming there is no what to change in >> some >> circumstances ther would be also possible to return `$this`. >> >> The return type declaration `self` could increase readability, but should >> not be required, >> as some developers doesn't already use return types. >> > > It could look like in this gist > https://gist.github.com/brzuchal/e7b721e22a19cca42ec0d1f597a23baf >
This is exactly how I meant it, yes. I actually prefer it if the
variable just exist in the context instead of passing it as first
argument. It's less obvious that it exists but the same could be said
about $this.
Would it be possible to have this thing just in time instead of
automatically created in every mutator function?
public mutator function f() {
if (condition) {
$clone is created;
return $clone;
}
return $this;
}
PS: I started overhauling the test cases and error messages and will
create a PR against your branch soon. I will start with the RFC
afterwards. Should I simply edit the RFC in the Wiki or should we manage
this somewhere else?
--
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
