Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76506
Return-Path: <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 35930 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2014 06:27:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 14 Aug 2014 06:27:06 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tjerk.meesters@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tjerk.meesters@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.52 mail-pa0-f52.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.52] ([209.85.220.52:62727] helo=mail-pa0-f52.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id BB/A0-30501-5B65CE35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 02:27:02 -0400
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id bj1so1053703pad.39
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date
         :to:mime-version;
        bh=aLn7C4ojbFos+EQkv1ZIQMcAadiF+7ksiL+KZleNy0I=;
        b=CLWQ/klnPhXsIU2jBFOOqcBht66wfoAYV3tJb43rQ7bsHuN0qPVW/THuxl5cVFTsTt
         ZikfUI0WzXKNWb3O+IhR+ACEH9W62pNk2+LkB67jRfLY5Xp9A8wrB2HbNLh6Wnl/4/pU
         dvGIsyY8HvyNY7e6me771eG/KkLmPVgwb/HeGdHpMTSwoEHfitSanNFtPlkyNyNIQsG9
         tQ46FQ5/JwRjey3qSylEJNYo2lQFWrKy2hcRahoYwTHIDqgDfo3fP27B6dGpUr7TUTjE
         dR5H3A3nmjFcAgrpVKhpx1Dx4gtBmv/zICeXJpzHiYIQKlr4vMkfCLVR5rGS+cJ8y/gw
         oaTg==
X-Received: by 10.66.141.74 with SMTP id rm10mr2283907pab.69.1407997618616;
        Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (bb121-7-198-24.singnet.com.sg. [121.7.198.24])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v17sm6149128pdj.11.2014.08.13.23.26.56
        for <internals@lists.php.net>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <5DCAA9AE-CC08-48BA-A0D4-78818BD5D656@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:26:53 +0800
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Evaluation of constructor arguments if there's no constructor
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

Hi internals,

I was sifting through the bucket o=92 bugs and found these two related =
issues:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D67829
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=3D54162 (closed)

They concern the behaviour of the engine when a class defines no =
constructor or if the class to be instantiated doesn=92t exist, which =
can be seen here: http://3v4l.org/jOQY0

This is obviously a design decision, but doesn=92t seem to have a =
mention in the documentation nor the spec (I couldn=92t find it under =
the =91new=92 operator).

I can add a paragraph in the documentation for it; the question is =
whether it should also be added to the spec, seeing how HHVM and PHP =
behave differently in this respect? It could be added as implementation =
dependent behaviour I suppose?


=97 @datibbaw=