Re: [RFC] Property Hook improvements

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 16:22, Rob Landers wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 15:29, Claude Pache wrote: >> >> >>> 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 was before properties could be functions? Now I suppose we have to decide if the > definition of read-only doesn't mean read-only, but immutability; despite the original > intention. > >> >> 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). > > Agree. I just wanted to point out that there were two interpretations: the English definition, > and the original intention of the RFC. > > — Rob In better words, as a dev, I don't care which interpretation is chosen, as long as it is consistent. — Rob