On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 16:22, Rob Landers wrote:
>
>
> 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
In better words, as a dev, I don't care which interpretation is chosen, as long
as it is consistent.
— Rob
