Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97836 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51252 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2017 21:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Jan 2017 21:45:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@fleshgrinder.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@fleshgrinder.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain fleshgrinder.com from 77.244.243.85 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@fleshgrinder.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 77.244.243.85 mx104.easyname.com Received: from [77.244.243.85] ([77.244.243.85:34933] helo=mx104.easyname.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9F/CE-00729-3809E785 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:45:40 -0500 Received: from cable-81-173-135-7.netcologne.de ([81.173.135.7] helo=[192.168.178.20]) by mx.easyname.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cTbZQ-0004p7-QY; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:45:37 +0000 Reply-To: internals@lists.php.net References: <9DBA4F2C-F8D5-4B2F-B211-F9C2A4664AB7@gmail.com> To: Tim Bezhashvyly , Marcio Almada Cc: PHP Internals Message-ID: <26cce4fb-5dac-09b3-0a8e-43e29840c454@fleshgrinder.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:45:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9DBA4F2C-F8D5-4B2F-B211-F9C2A4664AB7@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-DNSBL-PBLSPAMHAUS: YES Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] - Disallow Multiple Constructor Calls From: php@fleshgrinder.com (Fleshgrinder) On 1/17/2017 10:11 PM, Tim Bezhashvyly wrote: > Hi Marcio, > > there is no deprecation because nothing is deprecated. This is a > behavioural constrain. > > Regarding parent() this is just one possible future RFC. Our > intention was just to depict that the RFC in hand opens such > possibilities. There is no obligation. > > Regards, Tim > >> On 17 Jan 2017, at 22:08, Marcio Almada >> wrote: >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I'm ok with the idea. But could you elaborate why not propose a >> deprecation before the error on PHP 8? >> >> Also, one point about the future scope "Add shorthand parent() as >> alternative to parent::__construct().": Do we really need to >> introduce more language constructs that look like valid user space >> code https://3v4l.org/CE2q8 ? >> >> Thanks. Márcio. >> > Actually expanding on how to handle the upgrade path in case the decision falls on PHP 8 makes perfect sense. Emitting an error with deprecation severity too. Hence: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/disallow-multiple-constructor-calls#upgrade_paths Many thanks for the input! Regarding your other point. We just listed all constructor related ideas from the initial thread but we might not even be involved in their writing or they might never be created. Let's stick to the discussed RFC only here, thanks. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger