Re: [RFC] Readonly property hooks

> Le 22 juil. 2025 à 11:25, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> a écrit : > > >> >>> Should I be able to mark this class as readonly? I would think so. >> >> >> I don’t think so. >> >> If you want to *document* the intended invariant, you can put a @readonly tag in a phpdoc >> comment. >> >> Adding a readonly keyword should *enforce* the invariant; >> the added value is that it would choke on bugs like the one you wrote just above, making it >> debugging much easier. > > I’m not sure if you meant to, but I feel like you just argued for allowing readonly on hooks > so that these kinds of bugs aren’t accidentally written… You are misinterpreting my statement, and I’m not sure how I could be clearer (additional words will be subject to additional misinterpretation). I didn’t say: “we should allow readonly somewhere”, but: “if we add readonly somewhere, it should enforce what it means, not just document an intent”. > >> >> >>> The readonly keyword simplified that greatly, however, readonly has been neutered >>> compared to regular classes in the last couple of versions. There are so many edge cases and >>> non-implemented features with them -- mostly due to this exact argument you are making -- that >>> they're nearly worthless to actually define immutable value objects in today's PHP. >>> >> >> There are several issues with the readonly feature, mostly because of the >> “worse-is-better” philosophy. But we can slowly correct the main issues instead of making them >> worse. >> >> —Claude > > I think this is the main crux of the issue, right? There is one camp that says readonly means > immutable and another that says readonly is read-only. These two viewpoints are not compatible > despite having a lot of overlap. The original RFC explicitly and unambiguously gives the intended interpretation, despite your attempts to find another interpretation in it. I agree that the word “readonly” is badly chosen and confusing. But I don’t agree that we should reinterpret any feature based on incorrect understanding of its intent (unless, of course, there is consensus to reinterpret it). —Claude