Hi Claude, Tim,
One shortcoming around readonly classes that I just figured out, is that it
> is not possible to use them as anonymous class:
>
Nice catch! As you wrote, it's indeed an oversight of the readonly class
implementation. Fortunately, we already have a PR with the fix. :)
I'm confused by the linked PRs for the implementation, because they do
> not appear to match what's proposed. Specifically the one for proposal
> #2 (allow modification in __clone) appears to include unrelated changes
> (a clone-with{} syntax).
>
Sorry for the confusion! The PR contains an implementation for the "clone
with" indeed
just because it builds on top of some specifics of the 2nd proposal in the
"Readonly amendments" RFC. However,
the first few (4) commits are related to allowing modification of readonly
properties in __clone().
Máté Kocsis
