Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123552
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-497-g97f96844c-fm-20240526.001-g97f96844
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <73390f84-4c4d-4a48-a173-24ad424e0d2e@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGS0MVDacoYx299WLFFAV=54MRZeK+6ftST0Qt+x7EHhCmqM+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMuyDGP58tTGWiTN=e22x7A5DXxE7UTZ1X2No+zcf6sYUc4wmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa48b5a2-61d0-4019-a173-f353088edffb@processus.org>
 <652c1a66-6702-4009-a4a0-d2221df00f69@app.fastmail.com>
 <a4bda42c-877f-49fd-bfb8-053575efe684@processus.org>
 <CAGS0MVDacoYx299WLFFAV=54MRZeK+6ftST0Qt+x7EHhCmqM+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:47:40 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC proposal : "new" keyword shorthand
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, at 9:34 PM, Erick de Azevedo Lima wrote:
> Hi all.
>
>> Em sex., 7 de jun. de 2024 =C3=A0s 17:53, Pierre <pierre-php@processu=
s.org> escreveu:
>> I do agree with you that when you use value objects, you need it a lo=
t,=20
>> but I'd much prefer having a JS like value objects initializer syntax=
,=20
>> such as `Point {x: 1, y: 2}` syntax than creating another way to call=20
>> the constructor, which already has a mastered and comprehensive synta=
x=20
>> which is simply `new`.
>
> I also think that `new `(4 chars, if we count the blank space) is shor=
t=20
> enough.
> But a JS-like syntax that's already known for representing objects=20
> could be used.
> I'm sympathetic to something like this (changing the OP examples):
>
> class A {
>      public function b() {
>           echo "I'm B";
>      }
>  }
>
>  A::{}->b();
>
>
> class Foo {
>     public function __construct(
>         public string $name
>     ) {}
> }
>
> class Bar {
>    public function __construct(
>         public Foo $foo
>    ) {}
> }
>
>  $bar =3D Bar::{ Foo::{ "I'm foo in bar" } };
>  echo $bar->foo->name;
>
>
> #[AttributeOverrides([
>     AttributeOverride::{
>         name: "id",
>         column: Column::{ name: "guest_id", type: "integer", length:=20
> 140 }
>     },
>     AttributeOverride::{
>         name: "name",
>         column: Column::{ name: "guest_name", nullable: false, unique:=20
> true, length: 240 }
>     }]
> )]
>
>
> #[AttributeOverrides([
>     AttributeOverride::{
>         name: "id",
>         column: Column::{ name: "guest_id", type: "integer", length:=20
> 140 }
>     },
>     AttributeOverride::{
>         name: "name",
>         column: Column::{ name: "guest_name", nullable: false, unique:=20
> true, length: 240 }
>     }]
> )]
>
> --
> Erick

We already have named arguments, which gives nearly the same syntax.  Wr=
iting directly to properties like that makes no sense in a language that=
 has class-private properties and internal constructors.  It's fine in R=
ust or Go that don't have internal constructors, but it's just not a goo=
d fit in a PHP-like language.

And new Foo(a: 'A", b: 'B") is already perfectly readable and self-docum=
enting.  Yet another constructor-invoke syntax on top of that would offe=
r nothing.

--Larry Garfield