Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109249
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1b781e1e-3f27-485b-ab47-5eeaf9496548@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAAKU0u=B5LwjVaSk9u_MAuHb+qzaxSqnWdtZqtFS4fsD6dejpQ@mail.gmail.com> <0af67f9d-ce2a-476f-abad-385080ce14e8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0af67f9d-ce2a-476f-abad-385080ce14e8@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:47:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CABdc3WqSo4RY2vNsTcGMZ9cVATH5FfK0sv0ePEOdRj1ENs4j7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f163405a18ae834"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Improving PHP's Object Egonomics: A broad analysis
From: michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)

--0000000000003f163405a18ae834
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Larry,

pon., 23 mar 2020 o 20:04 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
napisa=C5=82(a):

> Merging some replies together here...
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Levi Morrison via internals wrote:
> > > In short: I believe our biggest potential win is to focus on 3 RFCs:
> > >
> > > * Constructor Promotion
> > I would vote yes on this, assuming the implementation is sane.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020, at 12:55 AM, Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski wrote:
>
> > That still doesn't resolve issue with lot of boilerplate when you deal
> with
> > small objects for which public readonly is enough like object-initializ=
er
> > could. So I'm not sure about my vote here. It does solve only one narro=
w
> > situation for me.
>
> The value here is combining constructor promotion with named parameters.
> Constructor promotion itself is useful for the class implementer, but
> doesn't help the caller.  Named parameters helps the caller, but doesn't
> really help the class implementer.  The combination of both of them
> together gives us something similar to the object-initializer syntax as a
> net result, but with many other benefits because it's not a one-off synta=
x.
>
> So with the two of them together, you get:
>
> class Point {
>   public function __construct({public int $x, public int $y});
> }
>
> Which then allows any of these construction mechanisms:
>
> $p1 =3D new Point(5, 7);
> $p2 =3D new Point({x: 5, y: 7});
> $p3 =3D new Point({y: 7, x: 5});
>
> All of which result in an object you can use the same way:
>
> print $p1->x . ', '.  $p1->y;
>
>
I agree it looks a little bit awkward and differs from object-initializers
known from other languages,
but let's say it would work somehow for this example. Now make it not 2 but
10-15 properties
with real types sometimes quite long so after 3-5 of them you should break
the line,
then add some default values.
Like a real entity which with typed properties doesn't need setters and
getters.

The example grows but even when breaking a line after each
parameter/property still could be somehow readable.

Now as we deal with Entity add some annotations or let's go hype, try with
new Attributes v2
proposed by Benjamin Eberlei
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/attributes_v2#userland_use-casemigrating_doctrine_=
annotations_from_docblocks_to_attributes
3 for $id and for the rest at least one attribute per property.

class Product {
    public function __construct({
        <<ORM\Id>>
        <<ORM\Column>>
        <<ORM\GeneratedValue>>
        public int $id,

        <<ORM\Column(["unique" =3D> true])>>
        public string $name,

        <<ORM\Column>>
        public string $description
    });
}

Let's stop on 3 I think it's enough to see it's:
1. unusual to see annotations in method signature declaration
2. not readable anymore.

Now if you say it shouldn't be like that and all the properties should be
declared as normal properties,
then the constructor is not needed to simplify the declaration but still
requires a lot of boilerplate on
the caller side undoubtedly.

Do you still think object-initializer is pointless and useless and can be
replaced with
named arguments and constructor arguments promotion?

Cheers,
Micha=C5=82

--0000000000003f163405a18ae834--