Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68454
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ED.E4.06453.42993025@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CE27EF9C.9917%seanc@fb.com>
	<CAPwsocFTxhuoLazpWC8Pt-r7H7vb=7a3G3=L19npQ6GD4CafqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52037411.7070406@seld.be>
	<CAEp07h9EZXr9iV14tYE8rEgPa0Yyu8OwHYpawzHmVPdmbYWfLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED.E4.06453.42993025@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:17:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEp07h_HAS6xi0Cskuyk661YnSqXZU2zVg-B02EfRwgEoUgkyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthieu Napoli <matthieu@mnapoli.fr>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1fa6281074504e3748265
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: constructor argument promotion
From: martin.keckeis1@gmail.com (Martin Keckeis)

--e89a8fb1fa6281074504e3748265
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 08.08.2013 15:12 schrieb "Matthieu Napoli" <matthieu@mnapoli.fr>:
>
> Le 08/08/2013 13:11, Martin Keckeis a =C3=A9crit :
>
>> 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 confusin=
g
>>> 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 wor=
k
>
>
> I second the feeling about the syntax, there are too many disadvantages.
However the idea is excellent.
>
> Maybe an alternative approach could do, here is a random suggestion (a
bit more verbose):
>
> class MyClass {
>   public $foo;
>   protected $bar;
>
>   public function __construct($this->foo, $this->bar, $baz) {
>     // $this->foo and $this->bar are now set
>     $baz->doAnything(); // $baz is a standard parameter
>   }
> }
>
> This would even be compatible with an interface:
>
> interface MyInterface {
>   function __construct($foo, $bar, $baz);
>
> }

Another thing which came into my mind:

I normall create a set/get method also to a construct parameter to
overwrite and unittest it...

So then i cant use this, because i construct i also use the set mehod to be
sure the var is assigned always the same (e.g. additional input check or
exceptions)

--e89a8fb1fa6281074504e3748265--