Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78986
Return-Path: <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 11393 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2014 09:27:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 2014 09:27:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.44 mail-wg0-f44.google.com  
Received: from [74.125.82.44] ([74.125.82.44:62899] helo=mail-wg0-f44.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id B4/24-15277-8826C645 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 04:27:37 -0500
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b13so267241wgh.31
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:27:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
         :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:from:date:to:cc
         :message-id;
        bh=Vk37tsgZJEikE4QbrItEIlCZuV2UhqAlZd/Ac+yI52w=;
        b=UmTVUSQxCRciNOQBAML/nEBYH9TCggQ4mmoO/pUbBmeK5Mv+AZMQ20i2amguu7ctnv
         JDzEYqbM/FFfV9wu8nlZ60gAvx/nUkGS8SA68bamiLSDeRiTQdEBHJX80kto8ga3O0ag
         Y2vie9BV9WT0C3dExRemOV0GSyD/P/yONWYsxvHcl6qDB479iTmfZkSGTYn3BT9yDg7o
         gqV0Rg/2ABMqPMmxG7CqWiWKo/cwJ79DLg+SjvKILxE5Isw+W1ynDedNCYt4pOag2WfW
         5CxqmYU8KrWyqDmeFkMB8m+F2IL30itX38je27wzY12wfJcMcJ7kjAk23C7KIE7AYCq6
         yIsA==
X-Received: by 10.180.80.133 with SMTP id r5mr3757049wix.20.1416389253302;
        Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:27:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (cpc68956-brig15-2-0-cust215.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.6.24.216])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g16sm1458000wjq.20.2014.11.19.01.27.32
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:27:32 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <546BF769.9090408@gmail.com>
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> <546BD451.4070909@gmail.com> <546BDEAE.2010102@gmail.com> <CADyq6sJ6fYWL+Re-eRXF2hcoRXTwFTrBmsr-OB8OrbyZXTzEQg@mail.gmail.com> <546BF769.9090408@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:21:31 +0000
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
CC: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <6120240B-1493-4805-90FF-C0EE38795B89@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Default constructors
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 19 November 2014 01:50:33 GMT, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, that's a bug :-)
>
>No, it is not :)
>We can do it all day but I think I've explained what is going on there.
>If you want to change it, feel free to do the RFC.

The point of this discussion is that there is an RFC on the table which can be implemented in such a way that it fixes this behaviour (by introducing a default parent, or injecting an empty constructor) or such that it carefully preserves it (by making a special case for parent::__construct). 

If you are, as you seem to be, defending this as a feature, it implies we should preserve (and, incidentally, standardise) it. If, as I and others argue, it was only ever an unintended effect of the implementation, then we should take the opportunity to correct it.

This reminds me of the recent discussion over multiple defaults in a switch. Perhaps as with that we should phrase the question as "is there any useful purpose to having the language standardised with this feature, and conversely is there any realistic harm in altering it?"