Re: [RFC] Readonly property hooks

> An init hook would be clearer, certainly, though it also has its own edge cases. Can you set > something that has an init hook? What happens if there's both a get and init hook? These > probably have answers that could be sorted out, but that's a different question from "why > the <censored> does a readonly class forbid me using even rudimentary hooks???" > > I'd be open to a follow up RFC for an init hook, though I likely wouldn't write it > myself. But that's a different topic than what we're addressing here. > > --Larry Garfield I'm not entirely sure I follow - it sounds like your email states that readonly should be interpreted as writeonce, which makes sense, but then why would an init hook not be the appropriate answer here? The two scenarios you listed (set hooks for validation and lazy computed properties) seem like they could be solved by allowing set hooks (everyone seems +1 to that), an init hook, and disallowing get hooks. It would sidestep the controversial nature of a get hook for the property. It feels to me like an init hook would be the more conservative approach, and would (I imagine) still allow for potential readonly engine optimizations like Tim pointed out. Once we allow get hooks, there's no going back. If we still needed to add get hooks in the future, it's not off the table. I don't know that I feel strongly here, but there does seem something intuitively off with allowing a get hook for a readonly (writeonce) property.