Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61686
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1343137723.2084.301.camel@guyrush>
References: <CABBJUpe-i3o5DcFH_cMJf7QxHmzkE3afjL_TXFrg-mCmOiFa=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1343137723.2084.301.camel@guyrush>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nGCgy07wxmB7WG2EDcin-rCnS2uE0u5Q=K=zydCc2BVVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: Laruence <laruence@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb503b8964504c5944b56
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Supports 'finally' keyword for PHP exceptions
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--20cf300fb503b8964504c5944b56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Johannes,

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Johannes Schl=FCter
<johannes@schlueters.de>wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 19:20 +0800, Laruence wrote:
> > Hi:
> >     As the previous threads disscussed,  I make a implemention.
> >
> >     here is the RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/finally
> >
> >     any suggestions?
> >
> > thanks
>
> As PHP has destructors there is less need for "finally" compared to
> other languages. What are the cases where an extra language construct is
> needed? (i.e. one can also use C++-like RAII things ...)
>

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Finally is a routine level
cleanup tool, while destructors are object level cleanup tools. So while it
is possible to make every routine into an object, at some point it just
becomes ridiculous. That means that every method that allocates resources
would need to be a first-class object, which could get quite messy very
fast.

If you went by "possible", half the proposals for the language wouldn't be
accepted (password hashing, generators, goto, Class name to scalar
resolution, T_AS for closures, type hints, call-time dereferencing, traits,
classes, etc). All of that behavior is possible without the language sugar
that they bring. The main drive for adding them is that it makes a
developers life a lot easier. Rather than dealing with yet another level of
abstraction to add an object, adding a simple finally clause would make
implementing that sort of cleanup FAR easier.

Additionally, the destructor isn't called until the object goes out of
scope. That could be after the method call (a scope block higher). So the
only way to fully emulate the finally block would be to construct the
object inside of the method in question. So it's not as simple as "just put
it in a destructor and you'll be fine"...

My $0.02 at least...

--20cf300fb503b8964504c5944b56--