Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124495
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:23:41 +0000
To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: lilybergonzat+php@gmail.com, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Optional constructor body
Message-ID: <Qnea8roi4EgUXwtdpg7d6DOHWFm9EooDYoYbMRQrr0Nt_Ise6zTy_YibpJXgwO6uLpvs54Ns3_9X3b1wUfKgKZGrOMoQXrTZwtkjujJOq28=@gpb.moe>
In-Reply-To: <5ad05cff-1543-4f8b-bb67-3a8d29171522@bastelstu.be>
References: <CABY-Mhz36WtLx_1bWAmK8rUpqAQTEw3H1mziPa5TH4nEgeHYFg@mail.gmail.com> <CANLbj-pk9FmHKG+PZcK-ua1DGKbHJ6wtsCKedKJdMSJZdM+aPw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPPUTHo-pfQNK_CKGTMm8fj1=VJaLvk5Y2iRpbCewuNBY48sSw@mail.gmail.com> <CABY-Mhz5P+QgoTgfHd1RV2=U_YV7VT0Yn08C9E98DNr93+9w1g@mail.gmail.com> <f1b87815-6c72-45fb-8762-8f00ebfe8d90@app.fastmail.com> <CAPPUTHo5g6gd=ZpYjEzXsRt1OYDs1zvxunWR115N1mOnh23ULw@mail.gmail.com> <5ad05cff-1543-4f8b-bb67-3a8d29171522@bastelstu.be>
Feedback-ID: 96993444:user:proton
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internals@gpb.moe ("Gina P. Banyard")

On Thursday, 18 July 2024 at 19:23, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> w=
rote:
> On 7/18/24 16:03, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
>=20
> > I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break
> > stuff, compared to the minor one, and so I don't see why the minor one
> > would be refused?
>=20
>=20
> There is no such thing as a minor syntax change. Any changes to the
> syntax has consequences for all the downstream tools trying to
> understand PHP. This includes IDEs, static analyzers, code formatting
> and linting tools, which would all need to be updated to understand the
> new syntax. Furthermore the syntax would need to be documented and
> translated within the PHP documentation.
>=20
> That's quite a bit of effort to save a single character per class
> definition. In practice it will be even fewer, because not every class
> will have an empty constructor. Also whenever a class gets a non-trivial
> constructor in the future, the diff would not just consist of inserting
> the new code into the body, but also replacing the semicolon by braces,
> making the diff less readable.
>=20
> I do not think this is worth it.
>=20
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

I am also of the same opinion.
The benefit of this is marginal.
And if this requires a semicolon, the benefit is even lower by effectively =
just typing one less character.

Best regards,

Gina P. Banyard