Re: [RFC] Property Hook improvements

> Le 3 juil. 2024 à 14:42, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> a écrit : > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 14:28, Claude Pache wrote: >> >> >>> Le 3 juil. 2024 à 11:54, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> 2. As for readonly, I think that the invariant it is supposed to provide should be >>> enforced as strictly as possible. It means that readonly is only >>> acceptable if there is no get hook. >> >> Hi, >> >> One more thing, why I think that we should be strict here. It is not just for preventing >> the user to write *dumb* code, it is also for preventing them to write *creative* code, e.g. >> >> ```php >> class doc { >> public readonly int page { >> get => $this->page + $this->offset; >> } >> private int $offset = 0; >> public function __construct(int $page) { >> $this->page = $page; >> } >> public function foo() { >> // $this->offset may be adjusted here >> } >> } >> ``` >> >> —Claude > > I don't see anything wrong with that code. $page doesn't say "immutable" it > says "readonly", as in "cannot write to". > > — Rob The fact you don’t see anything wrong is *precisely* the issue. According to the original RFC [1], the intention of readonly properties was immutability, not just non-writability. For the weaker case of non-writability, it was explicitly mentioned the possibility of (future) asymmetric property visibility. That said, I agree that “immutable” would have been a better word choice than “readonly” for conveying the original intention. We could also ignore the original intention and reinterpret the feature in case everyone agrees (personally, I prefer the original intention, but I won’t fight for that). —Claude [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/readonly_properties_v2#rationale