Re: [RFC] [Vote] Readonly amendments
| From: | Robert Landers | Date: | Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:13:35 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Vote] Readonly amendments | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-119418@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:27 PM Matthew Weier O'Phinney
<mweierophinney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:55 AM Máté Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail..com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We've just opened the vote for the "Readonly amendments" RFC, which is
> > going to be open for 2 weeks (until 2023-02-07).
> >
> > Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_amendments
> > Discussion: https://externals.io/message/119007
> >
>
> I missed something when reviewing previously.
>
> Under the Proposal 1 section is the following verbiage:
>
> > readonly classes can declare neither static, nor untyped properties, no
> matter if the declaration is done directly in the class or indirectly via a
> trait (https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/9285). Under this RFC, their
> non-readonly child classes would support them as any other child class does.
>
> However, the example demonstrates neither static nor untyped properties. As
> such, it's hard to understand what pattern you are trying to enable here.
> Could you provide an example of a child class that uses static and/or
> untyped properties, please? Basically trying to understand what this would
> enable, and why.
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> mweierophinney@gmail.com
> https://mwop.net/
> he/him
Mocking