Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113958
Message-ID: <55DEACD7-E0E8-45AD-84F2-A98D8AEEDC4D@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBB39829-FA18-4936-B0DF-58D7729A7006"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:42:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <DC22B556-A023-4F10-BE20-79857C93A58A@benramsey.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>
References: <0b8301d72a3a$71045ca0$530d15e0$@webkr.de>
 <DC22B556-A023-4F10-BE20-79857C93A58A@benramsey.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Raising the precedence of the new operator
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_CBB39829-FA18-4936-B0DF-58D7729A7006
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Apr 5, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Apr 5, 2021, at 11:40, Andr=C3=A9 H=C3=A4nsel <andre@webkr.de> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have =
to
>> write `(new Foo())->bar()` instead of
>> `new Foo()->bar()`. This is particularly apparent with the builder =
pattern:
>>=20
>> $developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
>> $logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));
>>=20
>> Since `new Foo()->bar()` cannot (and probably should not) be used to
>> "dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
>> name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no =
problem to
>> change the precedence rules so that
>> `new Foo()->bar()` means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on =
it".
>>=20
>> It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
>> compatible.
>>=20
>> Has this ever been discussed before?
>=20
>=20
> Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now=E2=80=99=
s your
> time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)

Thanks for the invite.

I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a =
synonym for `new Foo()`:

Foo::new()

That would be backward compatible because you currently cannot have a =
method named `new()`.

> My $0.02 is that this is unnecessary, but I can see how others might
> want it to avoid parenthesis soup.

Yes, off list Ben said he did not see the need for it, so I did not =
bring it up on the list. =20

But now since he has invited me to... :-)

If we had such syntax then that would also Andre and others to use (and =
reduce the necessity of needing so many parens:

     Foo::new()->bar()

Thoughts?

-Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_CBB39829-FA18-4936-B0DF-58D7729A7006--