Hey Tim,
On 03.07.26 22:56, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
- in the "Proposal" section example of the RFC text the `readonly` are
redundantly on the class and properties; in the later example you only
have it on the properties.
Good catch, that was a mistake. I've adjusted the proof of concept
implementation to add the `readonly` on the class. I've kept the
redundant `readonly` on the properties to be extra explicit.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Alright, I earlier wasn't sure if you actually wanted to make the class
readonly. I have a gut feeling that making the class readonly could
backfire. I know you consider `Duration` an VO, but with all the methods
that are likely coming who knows? Making all current properties readonly
results in the same as making the class readonly; maybe it is worth not
making the class itself readonly for the time being?
--
Cheers
Nick
