I really like a way with arrays. It allows users to combine what properties they want to re-set and
call the clone function only once. Really good catch.
On May 15, 2025, at 9:09 PM, Volker Dusch <[email protected]> wrote:On Thu, May
15, 2025 at 12:10 AM Larry Garfield <[email protected]> wrote:> Please include this
in the RFC.Done> The concern is someone calling clone($foo, object: new Thingie()), which would
complain that "object" is defined twice. Making the first argument named __object
sidesteps that issue> If someone then calls clone(prop: 'new val', __object: $foo),
that... I suppose would technically compile, but one should never do that, and I am perfectly happy
if that breaks. Similar for if someone called clone(prop: 'new val', object: $foo) if we
didn't rename that parameter. No one should be doing that and I am fine if that breaks
Yes. I think we're on the same page here. But just to be clear, I'll restate it again with
my own words:
Whatever the first parameter (the to-be-cloned object) of the clone() function is called will be
completely inaccessible as a property name.
clone($foo, __object: "bar") will fail (Named parameter overwrites previous
argument)clone($foo, ...["__object" => "bar"]) will also fail.
While clone(prop: 'new val', __object: $foo) just works.
For example, using the current implementation where the parameter is named
object:```class Foo { public int $bar;}$x = new Foo();var_dump(clone(bar: 5,
object: $x));
// object(Foo)#2 (1) {// ["bar"]=>// int(5)// }```
-- Volker DuschHead of EngineeringTideways GmbHKönigswinterer Str. 11653227 Bonnhttps://tideways.io/imprint
Sitz der Gesellschaft: BonnGeschäftsführer: Benjamin Außenhofer (geb. Eberlei)Registergericht:
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 22127