Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78970
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <546BD33A.9030400@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:16:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <546B0F62.1090705@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411181221100.13538@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <546B95F2.2050504@gmail.com> <546BBF4F.8040806@gmail.com> <919EDD0D-F0F4-430A-A84B-96A32DF45E7B@ajf.me> <546BCE21.7080403@gmail.com> <40CBCA4F-5FBE-4687-9DD3-E74F5F7EFD97@ajf.me> <546BD142.5090507@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <546BD142.5090507@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Default constructors
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 18/11/2014 23:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Are you sure it was intended to work this way, with the parameters
>> not being evaluated at all?
> Of course, just look at how ZEND_NEW opcode is written. It's the only
> reason in has op2 there. That code is not a typo, it's intended to skip
> the function call.

I don't know the innards of the engine well enough to follow this, but 
it sounds like you're talking about skipping the evaluation of 
__construct() as a method if it doesn't exist as one, which is perfectly 
reasonable.

However, the side effect that the *arguments* to that function call are 
not executed is surely an unintended side-effect of this, which was 
considered not important enough to worry about.

> I personally am not completely sure it's worth the trouble - since,
> again, no sane code should ever rely on something like this - but maybe
> I'm wrong that there's a valid use case for this.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to by "this" here. To quote 
an earlier example:

$b = 0;
$a = new Foo(++$b);

Looks like pretty normal code to me; no reason to expect anything about 
the way class Foo is defined to affect its behaviour.

No sane code should rely on that *not* incrementing $b, surely?

-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]