Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114346
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com> <CAC5V6ghaP0BswUjEE67bUojybszfU8w74Cc26ekTG1+5G31TxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKwa6hRR1_7ndaEE0otk7ccE8m0td6_uYzgxpm2ye8VN1A@mail.gmail.com> <973730f8-1c9c-4208-b1fa-5f1048f6d6cf@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <973730f8-1c9c-4208-b1fa-5f1048f6d6cf@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 21:46:34 +0430
Message-ID: <CAEMvS4EOrDqu4tyYcs6wTuMj+Q87cBJwSPk2_VBQsc_mTxAk0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d396fd05c1fcf2eb"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: hossein.baghayi@gmail.com (Hossein Baghayi)

--000000000000d396fd05c1fcf2eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If constructor is supposed to be empty then why are we even bothering with
construction promoting style? Why aren't we sticking to the old way of
defining properties?
Are there any advantages to using construction promoting style?

I mean sure we could have this:
class Foo {
    public function __construct(
        private Bar $bar,
        private Baz $baz
    );
}

but in my opinion, the old way of defining them is nice and concise:
class Foo {
    private Bar $bar;
    private Baz $baz;
}

What is the point of taking the hard way and then making it convenient?

On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:28, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote=
:

> 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:
> >
> > > 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 loo=
ks
> > > > like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small,
> > > > cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to d=
o
> > > > 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 usin=
g
> > > > 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,
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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 wa=
y
> 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 {}.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 tools =
or
> no.
>
> Related: I feel the same way about empty-classes and interfaces, which is
> often the case for exceptions where all you're doing is declaring a type.
> I figure that would get even more pushback, though. :-)
>
> As a data point, you can already do the same "semi-colon for no body" for
> foreach, for, and while loops.  I've only ever done it on foreach to runo=
ut
> an iterator, but it works on all three today.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--000000000000d396fd05c1fcf2eb--