Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114345
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <973730f8-1c9c-4208-b1fa-5f1048f6d6cf@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPKYkKwa6hRR1_7ndaEE0otk7ccE8m0td6_uYzgxpm2ye8VN1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
 <CAC5V6ghaP0BswUjEE67bUojybszfU8w74Cc26ekTG1+5G31TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKwa6hRR1_7ndaEE0otk7ccE8m0td6_uYzgxpm2ye8VN1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:58:01 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, May 10, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Chase Peeler wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:31 AM Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail=
.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmai=
l.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it lo=
oks
> > > 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 usi=
ng
> > > 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 defini=
tion,
> > 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,
> >
> > --
> > Guilliam Xavier
> >
>=20
> I'm ambivalent about this proposal, but figured I'd throw out one adva=
ntage
> to ; over {}. In my opinion, ending with a semicolon is a very clear w=
ay 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 kno=
w
> that when I'm writing new classes I often will set up the method signa=
ture
> 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
>=20
> --=20
> Chase Peeler
> chasepeeler@gmail.com

I agree that in the grand scheme of things this would be a minor matter,=
 but aesthetically I would prefer it as well.  The {} annoys me, CS tool=
s or no.

Related: I feel the same way about empty-classes and interfaces, which i=
s often the case for exceptions where all you're doing is declaring a ty=
pe.  I figure that would get even more pushback, though. :-)

As a data point, you can already do the same "semi-colon for no body" fo=
r foreach, for, and while loops.  I've only ever done it on foreach to r=
unout an iterator, but it works on all three today.

--Larry Garfield