Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114369
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:58:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c8BH6Tnc3L0qg_0gk9d_hEGM2hSP+_4sQ5mOwRasEcQqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9f28d05c20a1bde"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000a9f28d05c20a1bde
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
>

For what it's worth, I've received the same suggestion from quite a few
people. There seems to be an intuitive expectation that only adding a
semicolon will work in this case. Personally, I'm okay with allowing it.

If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a
promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I don't think
we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case.

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000a9f28d05c20a1bde--