Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78971
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <546BD451.4070909@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:20:49 +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> <546BD0E8.6020609@gmail.com> <546BD206.9040800@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <546BD206.9040800@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 23:11, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> "Been in PHP for a very long time" != "how it was intended to work". Can
>> >you explain why this would be the intention of anyone designing the
>> >language?
> Of course, been for a long time is not the same as intended. But if you
> look at how ZEND_NEW is done, it's clear it's intended. And the reason
> is simple - if there's no function, it's not really possible to initiate
> a function call and handle it properly, since the engine expects certain
> data there and there's nothing to provide that data. So, ZEND_NEW having
> no function just skips the whole function call thing altogether.
>

This is where I struggle: to me, the "++$b" in "foo(++$b)" or "new 
Foo(++$b)" isn't part of the function call; it's a statement that has to 
be evaluated *before* the function call can happen.

If a fatal error is being raised, it makes (some) sense to skip that 
evaluation, but if execution is continuing, it seems perfectly natural 
for that expression to be evaluated even if its result is discarded.

> If you think the decision was wrong and it can be done better
> - cool, let's see the patch.

I'm happy to accept that this is a low-priority, hard-to-fix, bug. I 
just don't see that it can be justified as a feature.

-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]