Re: Access property of object stored in a constant

> Le 19 août 2023 à 02:18, Juliette Reinders Folmer <php-internals_nospam@adviesenzo.nl> > a écrit : > > > I totally understand that people are trying to do this, but this still very much feels like > scope creep. > > IIRC the new in initializers feature was _intended_ only for enums (which can't take > properties). Now suddenly a "constant" would no longer be constant... In which case, > what's the point of declaring it as a constant ? > > Smile, > Juliette Hi, It might not be the original intended use. But people are entitled to use features if they find them handy for their purpose. (It was the reason I end up using PHP rather than Java: because it solved problems <https://www.npopov.com/2012/06/29/PHP-solves-problems-Oh-and-you-can-program-with-it-too.html>.) At the time I filed https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/10497, I was merely exploring the potential of the new ability to have an object in a constant. The potential use I had back in my head was the following. Currently, I store some settings in global constants. I was contemplating replacing those by properties of a readonly object stored in a global constant. (A fatal issue I discovered later in my journey is that readonly properties can only be initialised by code inside the class itself.) But in any case, it is good to have regularity in the language. The fact that an object is stored in a constant is completely orthogonal with the fact that the object is mutable, and the proposed patch does not add new capability. (Conversely, the current limitation does not remove any capability.) —Claude