Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113380
Return-Path: <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 77195 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2021 16:04:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2021 16:04:29 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736381804C0
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:55:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Virus: No
X-Envelope-From: <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id b1so33235683lfb.7
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:55:14 -0800 (PST)
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=Noc98mGb+IbmksgiwlgsfpAtARsumumy7oQxMPxZSvc=;
b=PJ0e3/aNlz4KmPh4APDO/L+t/sy8Db+OYT18S5mKfq6vXwVDO4VSYKEKkzXaMLStPH
lZeWnPKNh88nLL0TO0XdB4NNtD6CctXNfq00uyarExMZUaO2lV2nZjE3XsIAfIhxtyuV
syZc3Oc4u8vSWu5nJGxOw1EXxd6rrPbz8F5mDa4QrBfqWJsgEmv1Q1yPIwOhaRxd5UyC
sjOXaslAB1mD8hXEFP7Kaqpym5MYQMgvMyVPvjNiH0xZzKVqET8Njj3jVZhOPu9y+KZn
AFfMRQtSl4ucDMdJ4/9ttd6BQg15cwqXo2niCZKCDIFkGz2woNPQUyVn6YDzOgyOdgt+
EvzA==
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=Noc98mGb+IbmksgiwlgsfpAtARsumumy7oQxMPxZSvc=;
b=kk3M/76j2uuRHOMaWi4lqPd7bANNRajt6znlbrapdWgEz2zQELNM+QYXZniCvEvbAQ
UhZA6+jrQM2XVf5TnbjcC5aR7nHyinK4MZ3O6fQatZQwFFEuQSoYVDxc9tYdn7gEe3Lg
XxsYebnr/uG9f3J8QEuifuNtsJp1FrqdHodL9l7GGxo11DpOrYObN5IPmAWoJxhmK/aY
1gD3Wl9jCjS7j+QG+paGSvM9FzykKNYqNRHodcVcQERCKiEc+Bnu0K6KDxdn8Z7aznVA
8ZfyoWGZ91obYSNrr8TwsT7ddk+N9itr+o9j8XP5FwvyZBlL+p0B4ns2r1aVYlRQzLKc
26Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336Ha6Hcv/jVLRjq9X6FlMIwb4Hjky/1jT54PF2SPVahPcCBZ4U
pewKgQLlbTVObpkc6F4yzImX1CuDhSka9Oxh1Mo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyg/An7uNo7yMFJLDZA49jjUqn5JVuV27JPKZXcuvz6mevKmdI2hHDUgun9kKPE/nP4W8IAxFP7aHw5/CWEQU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5df6:: with SMTP id z22mr2609639lfq.485.1614873312582;
Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:55:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c-HY-0fx+pTmntRJZKcQcZFfk3uJwrZ6FAMAx5_Wj+JHw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO11TfEr-_-tZR_yAFF0n1U-Bfa=EtbwX54Cn908xJHomXPsJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO11TfEr-_-tZR_yAFF0n1U-Bfa=EtbwX54Cn908xJHomXPsJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:54:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_KrRFn03uVXJ157E71=_6RA1nYs532MQoP1jSRPuGCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabriel O <gabriel.ostrolucky@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000275e8205bcb7feda"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New in initializers
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)
--000000000000275e8205bcb7feda
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:26 PM Gabriel O <gabriel.ostrolucky@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 16:04, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi internals,
>>
>> I would like to propose allowing the use of "new" inside various
>> initializer expressions: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/new_in_initializers
>>
>> In particular, this allows specifying object default values for properties
>> and parameters, and allows the use of objects as attribute arguments.
>>
>> The RFC is narrow in scope in that it only adds support for "new". An
>> extension to other call kinds should be straightforward though.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nikita
>>
>
> Does this support anonymous classes? RFC should probably mention that.
>
Anonymous classes are not supported. I've added an explicit mention of that
fact.
Regards,
Nikita
--000000000000275e8205bcb7feda--