Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114334
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5V6ghaP0BswUjEE67bUojybszfU8w74Cc26ekTG1+5G31TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc2a5e05c1f7474c"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: guilliam.xavier@gmail.com (Guilliam Xavier)

--000000000000dc2a5e05c1f7474c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks
> like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small,
> cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to do
> away with empty constructor body.
>
> Here's an example of how this would work:
>
> <?php
> namespace App;
>
> class Foo {
>     public function __construct(
>         private Bar $bar,
>         private Baz $baz
>     );
> }
>
> Some notes to this:
>
> - Since this is similar to already existing syntax for body-less
> methods, parser should not be affected that much. I hope. I really have
> no idea.
> - Syntax would be optional - meaning, you can as well continue using
> empty body, just that in this case the body would be implied empty.
>
> Thoughts?
> Regards,
> - Mat=C4=ABss
>
>
Hi,

To me `;` means not "empty body" (that's `{}`) but really "no definition,
only declaration" (or "no body, only signature", and also "no code
executed"), i.e. an *abstract* method (either explicitly declared so in a
class, or implicitly in an interface).

Granted, property promotion is already special (cannot be used in an
abstract constructor), but it can also be mixed with non-promoted
parameters and body, so I feat that your proposed alternative syntax would
bring more confusion than convenience :s

Regards,

--=20
Guilliam Xavier

--000000000000dc2a5e05c1f7474c--