Re: [RFC] Lazy Objects

Hi On 7/17/24 20:31, Nicolas Grekas wrote:

A bit unrelated to the above topic: we've further clarified the RFC by addition restrictions to what can be done with lazy proxies. Namely, when the factory returns an object from a parent class, we describe that adding more on the proxy class would throw, and we also explain why. We also added a restriction to prevent a proxy from having an overridden __clone or __destruct when the factory returns a parent, and explained why again.

Note that in the RFC you typoed it as '__destructor' ('or' suffix).

Please let us know if anyone has other concerns.

I've replied regarding the cloning semantics in an earlier email. Regarding the reset*() methods even with the additional examples I remain unconvinced that this is not only necessary to work around existing design issues in userland libraries. However I guess that we will not reach an agreement here and I also do not consider myself the target audience of this RFC. I'm just here to find edge cases :-) Except for the cloning semantics I cannot find any obvious problems with the described semantics. Best regards Tim Düsterhus