Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71935 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59916 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2014 19:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2014 19:43:59 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 92.75.15.92 dslb-092-075-015-092.pools.arcor-ip.net Received: from [92.75.15.92] ([92.75.15.92:4381] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CF/64-30967-E7E4DE25 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 20:43:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <98.E0.35265.E17FBE25@pb1.pair.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 92.75.15.92 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization From: gooh@php.net (Gordon Oheim) On 01.02.2014 20:25, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:18 AM, gooh wrote: >> I've opened the voting for Automatic Property Initialization: >> >> - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/automatic_property_initialization >> >> There was little feedback on internals regarding this RFC but the few >> responses that have been made were generally in favor of this feature. The >> notable and understandable exception being the HHVM team that would prefer >> their own implementation of constructor promotion. No particular extra >> features have been rejected or strongly favored, which is why I am excluding >> from the vote. >> > FYI, I'm voting "No" as I don't think > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constructor-promotion was considered > adequately. They both seek to accomplish the same goal, but one > introduces conflicting syntax while the other does not. > > If we're to go with the conflicting syntax, I'd like to see a > reasonable argument why. > > -Sara > How is it conflicting? -Gordon