On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 15:29, Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
>> Le 3 juil. 2024 à 14:42, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> a écrit :
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 14:28, Claude Pache wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 3 juil. 2024 à 11:54, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. As for readonly, I think that the invariant it is supposed to provide
>>>> should be enforced as strictly as possible. It means that `readonly` is
>>>> only acceptable if there is no `get` hook.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> One more thing, why I think that we should be strict here. It is not just
>>> for preventing the user to write *dumb* code, it is also for preventing
>>> them to write *creative* code, e.g.
>>>
>>> ```php
>>> class doc {
>>> public readonly int page {
>>> get => $this->page + $this->offset;
>>> }
>>> private int $offset = 0;
>>> public function __construct(int $page) {
>>> $this->page = $page;
>>> }
>>> public function foo() {
>>> // $this->offset may be adjusted here
>>> }
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> —Claude
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with that code. $page doesn't say "immutable" it
>> says "readonly", as in "cannot write to".
>>
>> — Rob
>
> The fact you don’t see anything wrong is *precisely* the issue. According to
> the original RFC [1], the intention of readonly properties was immutability,
> not just non-writability. For the weaker case of non-writability, it was
> explicitly mentioned the possibility of (future) asymmetric property
> visibility.
That was before properties could be functions? Now I suppose we have to decide
if the definition of read-only doesn't mean read-only, but immutability;
despite the original intention.
>
> That said, I agree that “immutable” would have been a better word choice than
> “readonly” for conveying the original intention. We could also ignore the
> original intention and reinterpret the feature in case everyone agrees
> (personally, I prefer the original intention, but I won’t fight for that).
Agree. I just wanted to point out that there were two interpretations: the
English definition, and the original intention of the RFC.
— Rob
