Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130108
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFgk54k4NkUrUkMD=HE1TkowDJb55X9B7hcCa7vxGUbAfQhv8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0ece40da-762a-4190-9cc8-23ff432fd441@bastelstu.be> <CAFgk54=JDdpYH42btk5Rn7GpNibNOAyPGzJu7c+Jh17PNKSP9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <565970ab3a667958c340a9094d53357b@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <565970ab3a667958c340a9094d53357b@bastelstu.be>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:39:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFgk54=AzM9gzaaEcie0f8_j6AKRdNeaeoXEWe8EPvyFEH5xMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [IDEA for RFC] let the "new" operator fail when the
 __construct() function returns a value.
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: mirco.babin@gmail.com (Mirco Babin)

Op vr 20 feb 2026 om 12:35 schreef Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be>:
>
> Hi
>
> Am 2026-02-14 15:00, schrieb Mirco Babin:
> > This argument has convinced me. And writing it down helps clear my
> > mind.
>
> Great, thank you!
>
> >> All that said: If you are willing prepare an initial RFC Draft based
> >> on
> >> the official RFC template (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/template) and to
> >> go
> >> through the process of officially discussion the RFC, I'm happy to do
> >> the =E2=80=9Cpolishing=E2=80=9D work as an official coauthor / mentor =
to make sure
> >> there
> >> are no missing bits or other mistakes. I'm also willing to get someone
> >> to do the implementation (potentially I'm doing it myself).
> >>
> >> Do we have a deal? :-)
> >
> > I have prepared a RFC at
> > https://gist.github.com/MircoBabin/aaa574297c8d1baa879f19c99ce28e93
> >
> > Are you still willing to carry out the implementation? If so:
>
> Yes, I'm still willing to help out with the implementation (or to find
> someone to to the implementation if the RFC passes).
>
> > - Should I mention you as coauthor?
>
> For the =E2=80=9Conly warn on new at runtime=E2=80=9D variant, I personal=
ly don't agree
> with the proposal and thus don't want to officially co-author it. But
> I'm nevertheless willing to help with the implementation and with
> feedback to ensure that the RFC is in the best possible shape
> policy-wise. As previously mentioned, I believe it should consistently
> warn at compile-time and not make a difference between =E2=80=9Cusing new=
=E2=80=9D and
> =E2=80=9Ccalling __construct() manually=E2=80=9D.
>
> > - In the first chapter, what wording should "Implementation" be?
> > - What wording should "Patches and Tests" be?
>
> It's okay to leave that out for now in both cases. An implementation is
> not necessary to vote on the RFC and it can be filled in later.

Thank you for helping out.

> The next step would be registering a Wiki account at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc?do=3Dregister and then request RFC karma, so you
> can create a proper RFC page and =E2=80=9Cofficially=E2=80=9D start the d=
iscussion.

Ok, I have done that.

> Having the page will also make the RFC text much more convenient to read
> compared to the Gist.
>
> I've taken a quick look at the text and =E2=80=9Cformat-wise=E2=80=9D it =
seems to
> contain all the necessary information. Great work!

FYI: I used the following procedure for previewing:
- Goto https://www.dokuwiki.org/changes (or some other page that allows edi=
ting)
- Choose for the pencil: edit this page
- Paste in the gist
- Preview

Kind regards,
Mirco Babin