Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113970
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0b8301d72a3a$71045ca0$530d15e0$@webkr.de> <DC22B556-A023-4F10-BE20-79857C93A58A@benramsey.com>
 <55DEACD7-E0E8-45AD-84F2-A98D8AEEDC4D@newclarity.net> <CADyq6s+JMpY475d4L3OkBt+4_k962gryxEZtk+oCMBApfEBZ=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6s+JMpY475d4L3OkBt+4_k962gryxEZtk+oCMBApfEBZ=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 22:52:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6s+gnTEb8vsXOLmsLQTHWwOaPBDxXx_mU+m2GdEKgem=QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059a30c05bf3fe28a"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Raising the precedence of the new operator
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--00000000000059a30c05bf3fe28a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021, 22:51 Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021, 19:42 Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Apr 5, 2021, at 11:40, Andr=C3=A9 H=C3=A4nsel <andre@webkr.de> wro=
te:
>> >>
>> >> 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:
>> >>
>> >> $developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
>> >> $logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));
>> >>
>> >> 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 proble=
m
>> to
>> >> change the precedence rules so that
>> >> `new Foo()->bar()` means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on it"=
.
>> >>
>> >> It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
>> >> compatible.
>> >>
>> >> Has this ever been discussed before?
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now=E2=80=
=99s 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()`.
>>
>
> I have static ctors named `new` in multiple codebases:
> https://3v4l.org/FudWpk
>





> Sorry, mails synchronized now, and I did not realize that you already had
a waterfall of responses related to this :|

>

--00000000000059a30c05bf3fe28a--