> Le 22 juil. 2025 à 11:25, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> a écrit : > > >> >>> Should I be able to mark this class as readonly? I would think so. >> >> >> I don’t think so. >> >> If you want to *document* the intended invariant, you can put a @readonly >> tag in a phpdoc comment. >> >> Adding a `readonly` keyword should *enforce* the invariant; the added value >> is that it would choke on bugs like the one you wrote just above, making it >> debugging much easier. > > I’m not sure if you meant to, but I feel like you just argued for allowing > readonly on hooks so that these kinds of bugs aren’t accidentally written…
You are misinterpreting my statement, and I’m not sure how I could be clearer (additional words will be subject to additional misinterpretation). I didn’t say: “we should allow `readonly` somewhere”, but: “if we add `readonly` somewhere, it should enforce what it means, not just document an intent”. > >> >> >>> The readonly keyword simplified that greatly, however, readonly has been >>> neutered compared to regular classes in the last couple of versions. There >>> are so many edge cases and non-implemented features with them -- mostly due >>> to this exact argument you are making -- that they're nearly worthless to >>> actually define immutable value objects in today's PHP. >>> >> >> There are several issues with the readonly feature, mostly because of the >> “worse-is-better” philosophy. But we can slowly correct the main issues >> instead of making them worse. >> >> —Claude > > I think this is the main crux of the issue, right? There is one camp that > says readonly means immutable and another that says readonly is read-only. > These two viewpoints are not compatible despite having a lot of overlap. The original RFC explicitly and unambiguously gives the intended interpretation, despite your attempts to find another interpretation in it. I agree that the word “readonly” is badly chosen and confusing. But I don’t agree that we should reinterpret any feature based on incorrect understanding of its intent (unless, of course, there is consensus to reinterpret it). —Claude
