Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114373
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com> <CAF+90c8BH6Tnc3L0qg_0gk9d_hEGM2hSP+_4sQ5mOwRasEcQqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1620728274.110454.3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1620728274.110454.3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:40:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_kYPdCGkBD9g2Zq3DZ4E0qRvctJ9Vdpr_T-OWkMx-ckA@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="0000000000004b226305c20b88ca"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--0000000000004b226305c20b88ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:17 PM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
> ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
> parameters, and no not-promoted parameters.
>
> These would NOT be considered valid:
>
>     public function __construct(
>         private Baz $baz,
>         Bar $bar
>     );
>
>     public function __construct();
>
>     public function __construct(Baz $baz);
>
> as well as anything not related to __construct.
>
> - Mat=C4=ABss
>

I've put up a quick implementation for this:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6972

As this seems somewhat controversial, I'm afraid this change will have to
go through the RFC process.

Nikita


> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:58, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@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
>>
>
> 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 thi=
nk
> we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita
>
>

--0000000000004b226305c20b88ca--