Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114394
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> <1620744503.110454.6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1620744503.110454.6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:50:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKx4aKO7mLO==9GxWpehR3qZjHgp3aTmhCbdYBWniscOsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=ABss_Treinis?= <mrtreinis@gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058385805c20f03bb"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--00000000000058385805c20f03bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:48 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Hi Sara,
>
>  > 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 way to go.
>
> Sorry, but I don't follow - so you would prefer that this:
>
>     public function __construct();
>
> be valid syntax as well, considering within the scope of the proposed?
> Am I reading this right?
>
>
Yes. It might be silly and pointless, but, it doesn't have any negative
side effects, so why not?


> - Mat=C4=ABss
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:33, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.co=
m
> > <mailto: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 way 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, then 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).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:59 AM Mat=C4=ABss Treinis <mrtreinis@gmail.co=
m
> > <mailto: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
> > happen, 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

--00000000000058385805c20f03bb--