Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107063
Message-ID: <2CA1F9C5-AC54-4E45-AE9E-20BB32BD7093@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F1484F2-5079-44EA-95C7-3C410090E439"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:04:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CANZOY=AMc6rj1s-GLXUr1X72LHBxpROzOV5=_AT-wfuDOdSFAg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Arnold Daniels <arnold.adaniels.nl@gmail.com>,
 =?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?= <michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com>
References: <CABdc3Wpit02=BqvVE85ciw9qo3UYc2LBatOy23yFk5z+quZ2rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANS-=peR=rcZeHcRvZFxJPDsA402MKv_BxZ=ftU=Zo8Nad4CdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABdc3WravK6Xgqd9zcskdmVAxO+ewekXB=HsSc56+HVfcWDa+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <74C03BB1-28DF-4694-A91D-2516C545F8B2@gmail.com>
 <3CA484B0-BCA3-4A2B-B2A6-8B845F9C462B@newclarity.net>
 <CANZOY=AMc6rj1s-GLXUr1X72LHBxpROzOV5=_AT-wfuDOdSFAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Object Initializer
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_0F1484F2-5079-44EA-95C7-3C410090E439
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Arnold,

> This can easily be done in a number of ways, like the suggested helper
> function.

A helper function can simulate an object initializer but it cannot =
provide the same potential benefits.=20

The helper function uses array keys to identify properties, and as array =
keys cannot be declared like class properties, neither IDE, tools, nor =
PHP itself can validate the names and types of those keys like they =
could if object initializers were used instead.



Michal,

> I don't like how it works for anonymous classes. It's more difficult =
to
> implement since the compiler doesn't know the meaning of the (first)
> bracket. It's doesn't make the code more readable, for the same =
reason. I
> think it's better to not support this syntax with anonymous classes.
>=20
> The examples do not show how constructor arguments are passed. I'm =
assuming
> it's
>=20
>    $customer =3D new Customer("foo") {
>        name =3D "John"
>    };
>=20
> About the idea of letting `{ foo =3D 10 }` create an `stdClass` object =
(not
> in the RFC); While not used much since it has no effect, it's =
perfectly
> okay to put your code in brackets eg `{ { { $foo =3D 10; } } }`. As =
such, I
> don't think it's a good idea to allow `new stdClass` to be omitted.


I am curious why your RFC uses "=3D" instead of "=3D>" for separating =
properties from values? =20

If we used "=3D>" it is potential =E2=80=94 with lookahead parsing =E2=80=94=
 that the following could be unambiguous:

{ foo =3D> 10 }

-Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_0F1484F2-5079-44EA-95C7-3C410090E439--