Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114387
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 16:37:11 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20210511163711.122e46c1@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8BH6Tnc3L0qg_0gk9d_hEGM2hSP+_4sQ5mOwRasEcQqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1620635361.9147.0@gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c8BH6Tnc3L0qg_0gk9d_hEGM2hSP+_4sQ5mOwRasEcQqA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: FusionDirectory
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: come.chilliet@fusiondirectory.org (=?UTF-8?B?Q8O0bWU=?= Chilliet)

Le Tue, 11 May 2021 10:58:57 +0200,
Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> a =C3=A9crit :

> 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.

This would create a subtle difference of allowed syntax between a construct=
or
 and an other method, and between a constructor with promoted parameters and
 without. I think we should avoid this.

I even thought we merged changes to make constructors more like the other
 methods, but I just checked and it seems the RFCs to allow ": void" on
 constructors were declined.

C=C3=B4me