Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97751
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain heigl.org from 195.191.240.18 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <2051639b-1b63-2e44-51b0-381caa54dfd0@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:15:25 +0100
Cc: Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com>, sebastian@php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BC86F6B0-0B13-4DCA-9738-9019363953B2@heigl.org>
References: <0DE25BF8-D349-48EF-A83B-8837DD4AD1E0@gmail.com> <5efcc230-c67b-4439-cc82-b31eacbf36db@php.net> <CAOv67gsHZRBXugtknriqz4ofndsfaS2KBFjjMdahqKpCB8c+kA@mail.gmail.com> <7c8c8801-a849-6fd2-91e9-954030c55e83@fleshgrinder.com> <cc6bc980-29fd-2c6f-fc67-0de79c27409a@heigl.org> <2051639b-1b63-2e44-51b0-381caa54dfd0@fleshgrinder.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Explicit constructor call and polymorphic dispatch
From: andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)



> Am 14.01.2017 um 11:26 schrieb Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com>:
>=20
>> On 1/14/2017 11:20 AM, Andreas Heigl wrote:
>> Do we as "makers of PHP" want to dictate the user what the "intended"
>> behaviour of PHP is? Or are we treating the user as a responsible person
>> that knows what to do and also not to do?
>>=20
>> Personally I'm in favour of the later. Let the user be able to call
>> __construct whenever they like. It's a special method which is clearly
>> visible by the two underscores at the start. So the users either know
>> exactly what they are doing or they need to learn it.
>>=20
>> Translated to a different example this discussion is like: "Let's remove
>> the handle from the window because someone might be able to open the
>> window and jump out of it". The handle is there for a valid reason. And
>> as a window-maker I have no idea in what way it might be used. But I
>> have to accept that there are people missusing it. But should I limit
>> all those users with a valid use-case for it just to save some from
>> missusing it? And if we start with that, where should we stop?
>>=20
>> Just my 0.02=E2=82=AC
>>=20
>> Cheers
>>=20
>> Andreas
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, that is exactly the question. This needs to be voted on. Rust would
> be an example that protects you and C/C++ would be examples that do not.
> Both approaches are valid approaches.
>=20
> Note that the dictation will not always work, this is why e.g. Rust has
> unsafe blocks. The corresponding thing in PHP imho would be reflection.
> Hence, if someone has a special case:
>=20
> - Rust: use unsafe
> - PHP: use reflection
>=20
> --=20
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

IMHO it already IS safe.=20

In PHP 4 the "constructor" was a method thad had the same name as the class.=
 But now it is a class that has always the same name and is always preceded w=
ith two underscores. There is no way to "accidentaly" call that method. You h=
ave to explicitly call "__construct" to "break" things.=20

If developers "want" to break something they will find a way. Protecting "__=
construct" will not stop them from doing so. But it will stop the rest of us=
 do legitimate things.=20

Cheers

Andreas=