Re: [RFC] [Vote] Readonly amendments

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:13 AM Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Mocking > This isn't a terribly compelling argument. Readonly classes are typically value objects; it's rare that you will mock them as they will be used as messages or results, and you'll end up doing assertions against them — not mocking them. Anything else it would enable? -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney mweierophinney@gmail.com https://mwop.net/ he/him