Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114342
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com> <CAC5V6ghaP0BswUjEE67bUojybszfU8w74Cc26ekTG1+5G31TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC5V6ghaP0BswUjEE67bUojybszfU8w74Cc26ekTG1+5G31TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:40:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKwa6hRR1_7ndaEE0otk7ccE8m0td6_uYzgxpm2ye8VN1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099342805c1fac468"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--00000000000099342805c1fac468
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:31 AM Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 woul=
d
> bring more confusion than convenience :s
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Guilliam Xavier
>

I'm ambivalent about this proposal, but figured I'd throw out one advantage
to ; over {}. In my opinion, ending with a semicolon is a very clear way of
saying there is no body to the method, while having {} could indicate that
implementation of the body was intended but never actually done. I know
that when I'm writing new classes I often will set up the method signature
but leave the method body empty while I finish the code that utilizes that
method. I don't know if that is justification for the proposal, but it is
one reason why ; might be preferred over {}.


--=20
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--00000000000099342805c1fac468--