Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80709
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <54BABA93.9070809@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:20:36 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D554C8B8-0BFB-44F7-B23E-8BFC12AE2930@ajf.me>
References: <CAFMT4NpJxuuqc-wTr1aE4K+wZBT8+04j+9-SsY+nhUMU83fDUg@mail.gmail.com> <0DD30A0D-E7CA-4150-83E0-8FD46635279C@ajf.me> <CAFMT4Nq1X0bONCs=TJyjB1vZ=+UEnX0L8pSex5fWfUMssh4ktQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501161126340.4080@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CAMc0WS7MjJ85BTSQcRZtGS5MU_9_DfU95SRh6qkmDgWkS2dO4w@mail.gmail.com> <8761c6280g.fsf@margaine.com> <54B91D16.70901@gmail.com> <CAMc0WS5LpdVqF_5P8UiWBzuQc+maX+Shmmi8pZLgGRfOJ7aEmg@mail.gmail.com> <AC.11.47555.0404AB45@pb1.pair.com> <CAEZPtU7zTKZY4=n_pahWeW2G7JANNnrOZWHHz4bcVb-VGFpegA@mail.gmail.com> <78.22.47555.7C24AB45@pb1.pair.com> <CAFMT4NrH+=6B4=kVyrmW1Oc0N-_ONNdjaWK0xZCXDVnV_pn-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <1421519637.40188.1.camel@proposaltech.com> <54BABA93.9070809@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove PHP 4 Constructors
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hey Rowan,

> On 17 Jan 2015, at 19:40, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 17/01/2015 18:33, Todd Ruth wrote:
>>> As already mentioned I think as an end result we shouldn't have two
>>> >ways to define constructors. Given that PHP already prefers the
>>> >new-style constructors I've proposed that we work towards dropping =
the
>>> >old-style, it's just down to a matter of how.
>> I've been following these threads for about 10 years and beg that php
>> internals continues to "live and let live".
>> There have been many, many threads over the years from what I would =
call
>> (with obvious bias) "OO fundamentalists".  They seem to be at war =
with
>> code that is "bad form".
>=20
> This is an argument that comes up a lot, and it has some merit, =
sometimes.
>=20
> I don't think using __construct over named-method for constructors =
really has anything to do with "OOP fundamentalism"; it was a design =
change to make certain things simpler (like parent::__construct), and =
more consistent (all reserved magic methods begin with __, so any method =
not beginning with that is safe to use however you like).

To add on to what you said, there=E2=80=99s also a quite important =
benefit that __construct is a lot more obvious in what it does.

Looking at the following code:

class Foo {
    public $foo,
           $bar,
           $qux;
    public function foobar() {
        // ...
    }
    public function bar() {
        // ...
    }
    public function foo() {
        // ...
    }
    public function baz() {
        // ...
    }
    public function qux() {
        // ...
    }
}

It=E2=80=99s not easy to spot the constructor at a glance, and it=E2=80=99=
s very easy to miss.

Compare that to the following:

class Foo {
    public $foo,
           $bar,
           $qux;
    public function foobar() {
        // ...
    }
    public function bar() {
        // ...
    }
    public function __construct() {
        // ...
    }
    public function baz() {
        // ...
    }
    public function qux() {
        // ...
    }
}

Far more obvious. This actually tripped me up on more than one occasion =
when updating tests broken by the removal of PHP 4 constructors in =
php-src. Sure, the constructor should probably be the first method, but =
*even if it is* it=E2=80=99s still nowhere near as obvious in PHP 4 =
style.

Similarly, what does the following do?

    $this->foo();

It looks like a normal method call, and it is in a sense. But if =
you=E2=80=99re in Bar and inheriting from Foo, that=E2=80=99s a call to =
the parent class=E2=80=99s constructor!

The following is much more obvious:

    parent::__construct();

I think it=E2=80=99s pretty clear why we changed to PHP5-style =
constructors. They=E2=80=99re just a lot more recognisable. :)=20
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/