Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114388
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>
 <CAAEi=BO_juw-Cn+jUmL30_JDhZh22EqwWgrrWtJz=vF8Y5K7=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVpq+AZhnzUN4-6HJs2D66YiQjyMPedTaQP1X0QdwhxiSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVpq+AZhnzUN4-6HJs2D66YiQjyMPedTaQP1X0QdwhxiSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:39:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKysxa=VxPLL7tB98T8icVsfQW3JLPnZETYh47Ngj-uhmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8ea7205c20eddf1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000d8ea7205c20eddf1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:34 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM 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.
> >
>
> Hard disagree. While it's certainly silly/pointless to have a nil
> constructor when there are non-promoted args present, I think that
> deliberately making that mode special (read: inconsistent) is the wrong w=
ay
> to go.
>
> > These would NOT be considered valid:
> >     public function __construct();
> >
>
> For example, Niki's reply showed a place where that mode is perfectly
> reasonable (singleton finals).  If you must have this syntactic sugar, th=
en
> please make it consistent.
>
> > as well as anything not related to __construct.
> >
>
> I'd be willing to go along with inconsistency since once you allow syntax
> you can't unallow it without pain. So while I don't love the tack, I'll
> follow it if we do this feature. (which IMO we shouldn't).
>
>
>
I agree. I think making things inconsistent between constructors and other
methods is something that can be lived with - there are already other
things special about constructors that don't apply to other methods - but
we should at least allow consistency among constructors and allow the
trailing semicolon in all cases.


>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:59 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I think you've heard a number of strong arguments why it should not happe=
n,
> but I also think this deserves its chance to be fleshed out and voted on,
> so by all means, do work the RFC.
>
> -Sara
>


--=20
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000d8ea7205c20eddf1--