Hi
On 2026-07-09 13:58, Nick Sdot wrote:
At the time `__unserialize` is called the object exists, and the
property is initialised with the default value. So it fails in the same
way a re-assignment in the constructor or reflection `setValue()` will
fail. So, I wouldn't say "not a situation we have so far", but agree
that spelling it out cannot be wrong. RFC section is updated, and your
PR comment example added as a test!
Yes, it would be a situation we do not yet have so far: As far as I can
tell there is no way for a readonly property to be preinitialized when
unserialization happens. This means that it is not not observable that
the non-hooked serialization path ignores `readonly`. What is
effectively guaranteed right now is that using a custom
`__unserialize()` hook that loops over the given array and assigns all
properties will behave identically to non-hooked serialization. This
would no longer be the case as of this RFC.
There is two options here:
- The non-hooked unserialization path must also error out when trying to
unserialize into a readonly property with a default value.
- __unserialize() must be able to unserialize into a readonly property
with a default value, similarly to __clone().
But the current situation of “__unserialize() is less powerful than the
standard unserialization” is not acceptable, because it prevents
introducing `__unserialize()` on a class with a readonly property with
default values.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
