Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123558
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:44:42 -0400
To: Erick de Azevedo Lima <ericklima.comp@gmail.com>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?internals=40lists.php.net?=" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <4FF9662A-55ED-4E46-B2BC-4D43E328D994@getmailspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS0MVCypZHKK3_zT5vYAt1af7tGjQmJiQRT+8=5x2ATLibv6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGS0MVCypZHKK3_zT5vYAt1af7tGjQmJiQRT+8=5x2ATLibv6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC proposal : "new" keyword shorthand
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6663b78a_6b8b4567_f61e"
From: john@coggeshall.org (John Coggeshall)

--6663b78a_6b8b4567_f61e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline



On Jun 7 2024, at 8:49 pm, Erick de Azevedo Lima <ericklima.comp@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new keyword is meaningful and everyone knows what's being done just by looking at it. Removing it would make the language less readable. But it's a BC so big that I don't think it can be done anyway.
>
>

FWIW Languages like Dart are very readable without the extra new keyword (it supports instance creation with new or without it). I haven't put any thought into the engine changes that would be necessary to implement a similar syntax where new becomes optional, but I wouldn't be opposed to such a change if there was a PR out there for it.
But I'm with you -- I think new is fine. I 100% don't want to see it replaced with some sort of confusing shorthand, but I might be able to be convinced to make the keyword optional.
I also think in terms of value, cycles would be better spent on other things than to new or not to new .
J
--6663b78a_6b8b4567_f61e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=5Fattribution=22>On Jun 7 2024, at =
8:49 pm, Erick de Azevedo Lima &lt;ericklima.comp=40gmail.com&gt; wrote:<=
/div><blockquote><div><div><div>The new keyword is meaningful and everyon=
e knows what's being done just by looking at it. Removing it would make t=
he language less readable. But it's a BC so big that I don't think it can=
 be done anyway.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><br><div>=46WIW =
Languages like Dart are very readable without the extra <code>new</code>&=
nbsp;keyword (it supports instance creation with <code>new</code>&nbsp; o=
r without it). I haven't put any thought into the engine changes that wou=
ld be necessary to implement a similar syntax where <code>new</code>&nbsp=
; becomes optional, but I wouldn't be opposed to such a change if there w=
as a PR out there for it.</div><br><div>But I'm with you -- I think <code=
>new</code>&nbsp; is fine. I 100% don't want to see it replaced with some=
 sort of confusing shorthand, but I might be able to be convinced to make=
 the keyword optional.</div><br><div>I also think in terms of value, cycl=
es would be better spent on other things than to <code>new</code>&nbsp; o=
r not to <code>new</code>&nbsp;.</div><br><div>J</div></div></div>
--6663b78a_6b8b4567_f61e--