Re: [RFC] Allow Reassignment of Promoted Readonly Properties in Constructor

Le mar. 24 févr. 2026 à 20:06, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech..com> a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026, at 1:49 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote: > > Le dim. 22 févr. 2026 à 19:14, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> a écrit > : > >> Hi > >> > >> On 2/19/26 10:49, Nicolas Grekas wrote: > >> > Thanks, I've added new test cases to cover this. > >> > I've also improved tests as suggested on the PR. > >> > And finally I updated the implementation to reuse IS_PROP_REINITABLE > >> > instead of adding new flags + use an approach that doesn't require > walking > >> > the call stack. > >> > PR and RFC updated accordingly, all green. > >> > >> Thank you. The implementation looks much simpler now and the tests all > >> make sense to me and I can't think of any other relevant “edge case”. > >> > >> I have one more comment regarding the RFC text, which should result in > >> “minor” changes as per the policy of making clarifying changes: > >> > >> 1. “Set in child before parent::__construct()” also fails, since the > >> property slot is not yet initialized: > >> > >> That explanation and example does not seem to be quite correct: It's > not > >> the $this->x = 'C'; assignment that > >> fails, it's the implicit CPP > >> assignment when calling parent::__construct(). The explanation should > be > >> fixed and the // Error: Cannot modify readonly property > >> P::$x comment > >> should be moved to the parent::__construct() call. > >> > >> The test in the implementation was already correct. > >> > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > Good catch thanks, wording updated! > > The RFC is ready then. Any other comments from anyone else? > > > > Nicolas > > Two minor non-substantive points. > > 1. The "supported operations" section all the way at the bottom seems > redundant. That was already specified earlier. > > 2. It could be helpful to include an example of using property hooks in > the intro; there's an example of the other 2 options, but not of hooks, > which are also mentioned as a not-always-ideal alternative. (Let me know > if you want help or suggestions with that example.) > > Otherwise, I'm happy with where this ended up. Thanks! > > Thanks for having a look! Here is the update: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/promoted_readonly_constructor_reassign?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1771797005&rev2%5B1%5D=1771961558&difftype=sidebyside Cheers, Nicolas