Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Clone with

On Tue, May 30, 2023, at 10:04 PM, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023, 19:39 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:22 PM, Máté Kocsis wrote: >> > To be honest, the current behavior seemed like the natural choice for >> > me, and I didn't really consider to execute the __clone() method after >> the >> > clone assignments. >> > Do you have a use-case in mind when you need to forward-pass information >> to >> > __clone()? >> >> Not a specific one off hand. It's more a conceptual question. >> with has >> more contextual awareness than __clone(), so it should have "first crack" >> at the operation, so that if necessary it can make changes that __clone() >> can then respond to. The inverse doesn't make sense. >> >> The only reason for with to come after would be to allow >> with to >> "override" or "undo" something that __clone() did. Generally speaking, >> if >> you have to undo something you just did, you shouldn't have done it in the >> first place, so that's a less compelling combination. >> >> This one isn't a deal breaker, but we should be sure to think it through >> as it's kinda hard to reverse later. >> > > To me so far also it was natural to assume that __clone is first and only > after that the rest of the operations. > But with operations, be it properties assignment or even a > closure, would > run in the context of the caller of clone and sometimes this might be run > not from a method of the cloned class. > > An example: > There is a class that represents persons of a fictive country/planet. > Each person has many properties but has also a first name and a last name > and there is a rule: the two names must not start with the same letter. > Both names cannot be changed as they are defined readonly. > Creation of new persons can be done using new for new random properties or > using clone to preserve existing properties. But in both cases the first > name and last name are randomly chosen. > If we want to control the last name value during clone that would be > possible using the with operation but the logic to allocate a > first name > will only happen in __clone()method. > > To be able to achieve this we must have __clone last, as there we have the > internal validations, operations and also access to private/protected > members that are not accesible from where clone is being called. > > Regards, > Alex I... could not understand that in the slightest. Can you show it in code? --Larry Garfield