On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 16:43, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote:
> On 7/18/25 16:25, Faizan Akram Dar wrote: > > The problem with allowing only set hooks is that readonly class won't be > > compatible with hooks, I think that is one of the main motivations behind > > this RFC. > > Yes. The point is that the semantics users expect from `readonly` are > fundamentally incompatible with a get hook that could return arbitrarily > changing values whenever you read from a property. Just a heads up: I also plan to vote "no" on this RFC because the expectation with `readonly` is that there is no kind of interference or lazy initialization anyway. Now that lazy proxies have landed into core, there is also no need for `__get` hacks anymore. Marco Pivetta https://mastodon.social/@ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/
