Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117780
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMkzxZYd0iLY7RVvgGi_yFkoan1MQus-xYjAvHCvNqP46__Lxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMkzxZYd0iLY7RVvgGi_yFkoan1MQus-xYjAvHCvNqP46__Lxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:41:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuTutDUxcKhYLrcrc=VHMmvWrV72a1Wfe866tbM4KTiwRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ROX <roxblnfk@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Body-less methods
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

Hi Rox,

On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 15:49, ROX <roxblnfk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I focus on Developer eXperience and language consistency.

When you have karma to write the RFC, you should probably include in
the text why having an extra piece of capability in the language (i.e.
one more thing to learn), that only saves two characters is a better
DX than the current situation.

In particular, as it's a slightly different meaning from the other
places where no body is allowed, as Guilliam Xavier wrote in
https://externals.io/message/114324#114334:

> To me ; means not "empty body" (that's {}) but really "no definition,
> only declaration" (or "no body, only signature", and also "no code
> executed"), i.e. an abstract method (either explicitly declared so in a
> class, or implicitly in an interface).

It's not obvious to me that body-less methods would be 'consistent'.

btw, there's a reasonable chance that whether people like the general
idea or not is an aesthetic choice, and so people will either like the
idea or not based on instinct rather than 'logic'. By spelling out why
you think it's better, rather than assuming people will agree with
that, would probably give the RFC the best chance of succeeding.

cheers
Dan
Ack