Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113382
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-206-g078a48fda5-fm-20210226.001-g078a48fd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f182d96a-ef1a-4925-ac13-1bd655a8401c@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAF+90c_5zHAOdPETXcHvHbsYsPd78CYM5Sq0n82+OX7G_hKmMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAF+90c-HY-0fx+pTmntRJZKcQcZFfk3uJwrZ6FAMAx5_Wj+JHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABdc3WoQBGiwqyvvCNv-bcr8AE9L=6NaqMKKGU-rfr4Fbr0U-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_5zHAOdPETXcHvHbsYsPd78CYM5Sq0n82+OX7G_hKmMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:25:37 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New in initializers
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, at 7:53 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:

> I've added a section that describes reflection methods. It works exactly as
> you say.
> 
> There is one interesting case though: How should
> ReflectionObject::newInstanceWithoutConstructor() work? In the current
> implementation, it will still evaluate the property defaults, including new
> expressions. This makes sense to me, but I can also see an argument that
> this method should not evaluate them -- however, in that case I believe it
> should not initialize any properties at all (leave them in "uninitialized"
> state). Populating property default values depending on what kind of
> expression they contain seems like a no-go to me.
> 
> @Ben Ramsey: Yes, it's possible to use nested new. Generally, all supported
> constant expressions can be freely combined.
> 
> Regards,
> Nikita

Would that then end up allowing enum cases to have an object backing value?

enum Suit {
  case Hearts = new Heart;
  case Spades = new Spade;
}

Or is there something else that would prevent that?  (I know Ilija ran into some complications there.)

Overall, I think the benefit to attributes alone justifies this RFC.  Endorse.

--Larry Garfield