Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114381
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com> <CAF+90c8BH6Tnc3L0qg_0gk9d_hEGM2hSP+_4sQ5mOwRasEcQqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1620728274.110454.3@gmail.com> <CAF+90c_kYPdCGkBD9g2Zq3DZ4E0qRvctJ9Vdpr_T-OWkMx-ckA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_kYPdCGkBD9g2Zq3DZ4E0qRvctJ9Vdpr_T-OWkMx-ckA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 15:59:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAEi=BO_juw-Cn+jUmL30_JDhZh22EqwWgrrWtJz=vF8Y5K7=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e95d105c20e4e24"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: mrtreinis@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?=)

--0000000000003e95d105c20e4e24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh absolutely, and many thanks for doing the code part, Nikita!

I would propose leaving this open for debate till, say, 15th of May here on
internals ML to gather more input.

If there are no super strong arguments on why this should not happen or go
to RFC, I will draft a RFC and from there, the usual process applies.

- Mat=C4=ABss


On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.co=
m>
>> 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 th=
ink
>> we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nikita
>>
>>

--0000000000003e95d105c20e4e24--