Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68435
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52037411.7070406@seld.be>
References: <CE27EF9C.9917%seanc@fb.com>
	<CAPwsocFTxhuoLazpWC8Pt-r7H7vb=7a3G3=L19npQ6GD4CafqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52037411.7070406@seld.be>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:11:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEp07h9EZXr9iV14tYE8rEgPa0Yyu8OwHYpawzHmVPdmbYWfLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jordi Boggiano <j.boggiano@seld.be>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01161a906e694504e36db987
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: constructor argument promotion
From: martin.keckeis1@gmail.com (Martin Keckeis)

--089e01161a906e694504e36db987
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Am 08.08.2013 12:34 schrieb "Jordi Boggiano" <j.boggiano@seld.be>:
>
> On 08.08.2013 10:34, Leigh wrote:
> > I'm not sure what problem this is really trying to solve, the
boilerplate
> > code you mention is very explicit and it is very clear to the reader
what
> > is being done. Each property documented with its type, purpose and
> > visibility in a common place for easy reference (at the top of the
class).
> > Each property that takes a value from the constructor assigned in the
> > constructor. Very clear.
>
> I for one am pretty tired of writing this boilerplate in every second
> class I write. Using dependency injection you end up having to write a
> LOT of those usually, and constructors typically only contain assignments.
>
> Adding a property means: declaring the property, adding the ctor arg,
> adding the assignment in the ctor. You have to write the property name 4
> times. With this RFC in it'd come down to writing it once, and would
> avoid having undeclared properties because someone forgot.
>
> I am very supportive the idea, although I see that it could be confusing
> to some. Maybe the syntax needs to change, but the overall change is
> much welcome.

The syntax itself i feel is self explaining. You read it and you know whats
going on.

But somehow i feel this is "wrong". Declaring visibility directly in the
arguments? This looks very scary to me. (Maybe only because i've never seen
it before...)

Other reasons against:
Phpdoc generator break
Code completion break
If constructor is not at the beginning never see a var declaration
Auto generation of set/get can be achieved with IDE..so its not much work

--089e01161a906e694504e36db987--