> Yes, this is a possible alternative interpretation of the readonly concept.
> The current proposal is closer to how Java final variables work, which never
> allow reassignment, while your suggestion is closer to C# readonly, which
> does allow reassigning in the constructor.
>
> I went with
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:36 AM André Rømcke
wrote:
> > > It's okay to vote against this if cloning is a deal breaker. In that
> case
> > > I'll probably either work on cloning before re-proposing this, or
> pivot to
> > > asymmetric visibility -- it's not my first preference, but it may be
>
> > It's okay to vote against this if cloning is a deal breaker. In that case
> > I'll probably either work on cloning before re-proposing this, or pivot to
> > asymmetric visibility -- it's not my first preference, but it may be the
> > more pragmatic choice. Cloning is definitely the weak point
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > You might not like the boilerplate, but that just works.
> >
> > Can this be considered Nikita?
> >
>
> Well, it's a nifty hack :) I don't think this is the solution we want to
> encourage though. It requires you pass extra information
Le 29/06/2021 à 15:08, Nikita Popov a écrit :
Well, it's a nifty hack :) I don't think this is the solution we want to
encourage though. It requires you pass extra information through a
side-channel -- I think I'd rather not use readonly than write that code.
Continuing along the same line, one
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 9:14 AM Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
> Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 18:22, Larry Garfield a
>>> écrit :
>>>
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
> > >
>
> Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 18:22, Larry Garfield a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
>>> > > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
>>> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2
>>> > > >
>>> > > > This proposal is similar to
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> >> > Actually, we talked off the list about a way to possibly make this work
> >> > with __clone():
> >> >
> >> > We could allow __clone to have one argument, the object being cloned.
> >> And
> >> > when the signature declares this
Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 20:30, Nicolas Grekas
a écrit :
>
>
> Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 18:22, Larry Garfield a
> écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
>> > > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
>> > > >
Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 18:22, Larry Garfield a
écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
> > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2
> > > >
> > > > This proposal is similar to the
> > > >
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2
> > >
> > > This proposal is similar to the
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been
> >
> > I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2
> >
> > This proposal is similar to the
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been
> declined
> > previously. One significant difference is that the new RFC
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 5:19 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to open the discussion on readonly properties:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2
>
> This proposal is similar to the
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/write_once_properties RFC that has been declined
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
