On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:56 PM Patrick ALLAERT
wrote:
> Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 12:23, Nikita Popov a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi internals,
>>
>> I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2.
>> The vote closes 2021-07-15.
>>
>> See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the
Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 12:23, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> Hi internals,
>
> I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2.
> The vote closes 2021-07-15.
>
> See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the discussion thread on this
> proposal. I think a decent tl;dr is that
Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 12:23, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> Hi internals,
>
> I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2.
> The vote closes 2021-07-15.
>
> See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the discussion thread on this
> proposal. I think a decent tl;dr is that
Hi
> Thanks for the RFC. A quick question, is it allowed to assign to a readonly
> property multiple times within the construction method? Sorry for it if
> someone has asked this before, because actually I didn't go through the whole
> thread, only did a quick search on it. Thanks.
No,
Hi Nikita,
Thanks for the RFC. A quick question, is it allowed to assign to a readonly
property multiple times within the construction method? Sorry for it if someone
has asked this before, because actually I didn't go through the whole thread,
only did a quick search on it. Thanks.
Regards,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:06 PM Deleu wrote:
> I honestly don't understand not wanting this just because of lack of
> cloning.
>
Agreed: improvements on cloning ergonomics can come later.
Also, the problem goes away the smaller your state becomes: this may
encourage some design towards more
Le 01/07/2021 à 17:25, Larry Garfield a écrit :
The most famous use case right now for with-er objects is PSR-7, which is where
the naming convention comes from. I cannot say how widely used it is outside
of FIG-inspired value objects, but I am pretty sure it is used.
As long as you implement
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:25 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Pierre wrote:
> > Le 01/07/2021 à 16:38, Nicolas Grekas a écrit :
> > > Hi NIkita,
> > >
> > > I voted against the proposal because it doesn't work with cloning at
> all.
> > >
> > > Cloning is a critical
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Pierre wrote:
> Le 01/07/2021 à 16:38, Nicolas Grekas a écrit :
> > Hi NIkita,
> >
> > I voted against the proposal because it doesn't work with cloning at all.
> >
> > Cloning is a critical feature of stateful objects, and we should solve it
> > the same version
Le 01/07/2021 à 16:38, Nicolas Grekas a écrit :
Hi NIkita,
I voted against the proposal because it doesn't work with cloning at all.
Cloning is a critical feature of stateful objects, and we should solve it
the same version that introduces readonly IMHO.
If we figure out that we can't agree
Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 12:23, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> Hi internals,
>
> I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2.
> The vote closes 2021-07-15.
>
> See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the discussion thread on this
> proposal. I think a decent tl;dr is that
Hi Nikita,
It is going to be the second contribution from you regarding OOP.
However, this proposal, as you have mentioned, has some issues with
cloning. What if you would have opened voting after fixing this?
Or, your mood is to get it passed and then fix it before final release of 8.1?
Thank
Hi internals,
I have opened voting on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2.
The vote closes 2021-07-15.
See https://externals.io/message/114729 for the discussion thread on this
proposal. I think a decent tl;dr is that readonly properties as proposed do
not play well with clone-based
13 matches
Mail list logo
