Re: Allow hooks in `readonly` promoted properties

Hey all, > On 4. Jun 2025, at 01:03, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > It's about expectation setting. If you see a property marked > readonly, it's reasonable to expect this to be true: > > $foo->bar == $foo->bar; > > For a traditional field (pre-hooks), this would be trivially true. With hooks, it may or may > not be. Saying "well, that assumption doesn't hold anymore, deal" is certainly an > option, but it's not an option we wanted to pursue as part of the larger RFC. But that is > certainly a direction we could take. Larry, I understand now that you in fact explicitly talk about random_int(). Previously, I did not. I was more on the “manipulating in general” meta level. Fair. If someone really wants to add random_int(): "well, that assumption doesn't hold anymore, deal” from my side. >> So, I would love to see this RFC to be implemented. >> Maybe you want to move it to discussion? Then my separate thread here >> would be obsolete. > > I believe at the moment that RFC text is all there is. :-) I don't know that it's > worth opening a discussion without at least a mostly-done implementation. Also, Ilija is rather > busy on other tasks at the moment, as am I. (Unless someone else wants to jump in to implement it, > which would be fine.) People often say “you can just do things”. So I did, and tried to contribute the code for your existing RFC text: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/18757 Can it really be such a little change? I’d appreciate feedback from people more experienced than I am. Thanks! Cheers, Nick