Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109089
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJmjfvW8b=jYTjLfW9N9FT_eQVS7RBe768NZXv-g4V2RM3OgtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKqEbBY3vSFZ5uJoYQ-um0yiR5USgFSo6A6L5Z4Y7SOA2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKqEbBY3vSFZ5uJoYQ-um0yiR5USgFSo6A6L5Z4Y7SOA2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:47:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJmjfvXYpaGx=UfaKN-SA6gYx_Ya22E99AUydBuD=OHWTfcC4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Compact Object Property Assignment
From: jakob@givoni.dk (Jakob Givoni)

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:40 AM Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for having another go at this feature, which I think a lot of people
> would like in some form.
I agree!

> Maybe we want to have all four, but that would leave us with a lot of
> different ways of initialising objects, which might not be such a good
> thing.
Remember that the RFC explicitly says it's not an object initializer,
nor does it solve "named parameters" which you mention.
If I had the choice, I'd go with named parameters when creating an
object, but I don't and
this is the next best thing. It's simple and it doesn't introduce any
new concepts.
It just allows you to do something inline that you could until now
only do line by line.

> You mention using "argument bag" objects in place of named parameters, but
> that feels like it would be even more awkward than using an associative
> array.
The associative array is a common pattern, but it defeats name and
type checking.
An Options class add almost no extra boilerplate since you simply move
the properties from
the main class to the Options class.
Notice that in contrary to your example, I simply copy the Options
object whole into the main class.

> COPA can only validate individual
> parameters, not the whole object; so it's hard to complain if the user
> forgets a mandatory field
Correct, the goals for COPA are quite clear in the "Motivation"
section and that kind of validation
is not one of them
Luckily you can still do things the way you prefer without COPA if it
doesn't suit you :-)

Best,
Jakob