Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107078 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24848 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2019 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2019 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826AF2D2062 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id t5so9899910ybt.4 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yGBW5UvVh4poAP0J/sjIROFJZaW0PFhTueVVKR7BKB8=; b=RhpiTkpMNPmVw2RR1iNL/s+7hsp6rlwSmBAbRIsFP+JRagOnVxtdS7gwB/pO1qXxuN WDcEx7HNE1QYwF5fJdauN3Jza2rin4b/XYxTmI/FQkYar55Oj4YDTUZL8arVX1wCWQjI 043IwIL8gV8oACKQAf3/r96x6qzMYaW7DpcUmK0EuE8xvbywRpULdZ66bCpDy1bycVQK GdELuNRHK+h5kOCLsr5IF0BnK7iUjmUDdWmk1+pJFK9yr3PchD4ObGv3GkeI/DsgJHGj 3PwsuOqXEu+XabkQmU9UYzcYR8sjlKApQvZQawUWTVsif3r46DKs/3efyfYz0a3vj/jI rQ6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yGBW5UvVh4poAP0J/sjIROFJZaW0PFhTueVVKR7BKB8=; b=KeXKZyfGh4m6oI4E0GJHqGk2gDyTaOyz96inKcqmhTlpLN/d5L3iyA4SkYFsSVFyOM /+Ae37xZY4wvpQR+f7clOsdDPduNpCrRSBRhxVIiuqxBt1Xx/1k6tmE+o4ROwqB1FNGr zEhjyTgcITkmZvbBva3CfGyrBlrMnddXgz4JWjlt9eyOpjswK16fZo00Wu2AJowQiLjd 1if2ELYvNzn7qXyGcwn0GoWD3f7yprDyezdr/sB8pna9OZaZbmKRPGPhmJTON3EIUZFu V0acuWUSXOYaNzlNM+LVVQ2oe4inT6nUP1Uwr3TZXaAL50w1xEYPJmI1CEXNfpGMH72+ GR+g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjJmtgm2Y/BpzpP8qlgQ1/hLupXxjpeALzbLuVsfIvc2h/xvSK tgk7cIacYKoh80fqbN/AW+eXOhV6gKufcytWG1I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwk0CZA/omXN1EZnbnanDRg97k2a3pzY7OuhN1sk4fCcJnxyVdbpTbjCtlR6HH++bLocKEzKXHWn1OBxjFh3A8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:942:: with SMTP id u2mr206032ybm.369.1568381037228; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:23:45 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?= Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098b89305926f2a84" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Object Initializer From: matthewmatthew@gmail.com (Matthew Brown) --00000000000098b89305926f2a84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Though this is truly a stylistic complaint, I think it will lead to harder-to-analyse code. Currently I have a static analysis tool that can verify (in 99% of cases) whether all properties of a class have been initialised in the constructor. This check is even more important in PHP 7.4, where use of a property without instantiation is a fatal error. Figuring out which properties have been instantiated in a constructor is non-trivial, and it's only efficient to do it once per class. If we adopt this into the language and people use both __construct and object initializers for a given class, analysis would become much more tricky. In order to find the error in this: abstract class A { public string $s; public int $t; } class B extends A { public bool $u; public function __construct() { $this->s =3D "hello"; } } $b =3D new C { u =3D true }; The analyzer needs to understand that the initialisation of B left a property uninitialised - it warns about it in B's constructor ( https://psalm.dev/r/0e8e40fefc) but I worry that people will start to dismiss those warnings as false-positives if this pattern becomes popular. Best wishes, Matt On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 10:00, Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi internals, > > I'd like to open discussion about RFC: Object Initializer. > > This proposal reduces boilerplate of object instantiation and properties > initialization in case of classes without required constructor arguments = as > a single expression with initializer block. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object-initializer > > I appreciate any feedback you all can provide. > > Thanks, > -- > Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski > brzuchal@php.net > --00000000000098b89305926f2a84--