Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110133
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c8tW27-rhrk8pLieMsEWa4WHEBciPX1zThME68zf6s2QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8ER9J__R1A_6OcnvJ1xRyruj7jdQRDndODqtFCqdZkMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuTWDF5UkF62B5NNp7UWzziYEstRWXZcXx4BOfg=mAs-qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTWDF5UkF62B5NNp7UWzziYEstRWXZcXx4BOfg=mAs-qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 18:21:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c80Vcwk0ZpkEBBW0oxZ-QJtS7A=KaXyFAA8bijENhUf0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb1acb05a561bea1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Constructor Property Promotion
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000bb1acb05a561bea1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:26 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:52, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please tell me if you have further concerns
>
> Question - as this is just sugar, presumably it doesn't add much
> complexity to the PHP engine?
>

Yes, the implementation complexity for this feature is minimal, as these
things go.


> Vague concern - because it's a novel syntax, I find it hard to read,
> particularly when there are comments* for the properties. Do you think
> I'll just get used to it, or is it likely to be an ongoing issue?
>

Well, I can't really answer this with confidence, but given the number of
people who told me how much they love this feature in TypeScript, I would
hazard that you would indeed get used to it.


> Also, in five years time, if we have structs**, people will be
> wondering why we bothered with this. But I think it does make life
> easier for developers in the meantime.
>

When we discussed this topic in chat last time, I got the feeling that the
rough consensus was that introducing "structs" as a feature distinct from
classes is a bad idea, and we should instead try to make relevant features
available for classes. Constructor promotion is one of those :)


> class UrlToPdfProcessor
> {
>     public function __construct(
>         // The full url to reach the instance of chrome running in
> headless mode.
>         public string $chromeUrl,
>
>         // A path to a directory where the output PDF will be written to.
>         // It must already exist and be writeable by the process running
>         // the PDF processor.
>         public string $tmpPath,
>
>         // The internal domain name for the site to be rendered.
>         // The domain name should not contain either protocol or path
>         // components
>         string $internalDomain
> ) {
>     }
> }
>

As suggested in
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constructor_promotion#coding_style_considerations,
my recommendation is to use normal @param annotations for constructor
arguments, as we do now. While interleaving parameters and comments is
certainly possible (already), it's certainly not common style, and I don't
think it will become common style with constructor promotion.

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000bb1acb05a561bea1--