On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Máté Kocsis wrote:
> At this point I'd like to repeat one of my previously mentioned arguments
> for the feature:
> if we have an immutable PSR-7 that is used all over the PHP ecosystem, and
> we also have
> lots of people who wish for more type-level strictness
Hi Levi,
Thank you very much for your feedback! I'll try to answer some of your
concerns.
Chiming in to express my disappointment that `final` wasn't a voting choice.
>
When I started to draft the RFC, I realized that a final property modifier
that I wanted
to propose would be pretty much
Chiming in to express my disappointment that `final` wasn't a voting choice.
1. It's already reserved, so we don't have to worry about a new keyword.
2. Another very popular language that is similar to PHP already uses it (Java).
I voted no for a variety of reasons, which includes:
- It
>
> Both proposals relate a lot to each other: it's one or another, both cannot
> coexist: there is only one meaning for the "readonly" keyword once it's
> bound to some interpretation.
You are right in the sense that the two proposals can't use the same
keyword.
However, I believe we both agree
Nicolas Grekas wrote:
(from the other thread)
> there must be a way to work around the keyword -
> either via reflection or another means.
Can you expand on why there 'must' be a way to work around this? Can
you provide some example code where not being able to change the value
is going to cause
> I'd like to reiterate my answer then: I think your idea and my proposal
> doesn't try to solve the same problem.
>
Like you write in the RFC:
> Although actually “write-once” properties and property accessors are
orthogonal to each other, it's arguable whether we still needed
“write-once”
> I don't think these issues can nor should be figured out later on: they
> are low-level conceptual issues IMHO.
I don't agree. Initialization would for example 100% work, I only removed
it from the proposal at the end because
we'll have more freedom to add new language behaviour until we find
> I believe we had a long enough and fruitful discussion period,
> so I have just opened the vote at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties
> since I didn't want to add any significant change to the proposal
> any more.
>
> The vote will run for 2 weeks and it will be closed on
Hi Aleksander,
Thank you for the comment!
You are right, the is missing from there.
I believe we can correct small typos/grammatical errors
as far as the contents of the RFC stays the same. That's
why I've just fixed the issue.
Cheers,
Máté
On 17.03.2020 11:12, Máté Kocsis wrote:
> I believe we had a long enough and fruitful discussion period,
> so I have just opened the vote at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties
> since I didn't want to add any significant change to the proposal
> any more.
I'm not sure the RFC can be
10 matches
Mail list logo
