Hi internals!
In this issue, a suggestion was made that it would be convenient if BcMath\Number could be initialized in a callable-style form (i.e. initialized via a static method):
https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/22128
Indeed, as pointed out in the issue, similar static methods exist in classes such as DateTime.
I am in favor of introducing such a static method. It would probably look something like this:
// $scale is optional
$num = BcMath\Number::createFrom($val, $scale);
It would effectively serve as an alias for the constructor.
Incidentally, since this does not introduce any BC break, I do not believe an RFC is necessary.
I would like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
Regards,
Saki
Hi internals!
In this issue, a suggestion was made that it would be convenient if
BcMath\Numbercould be initialized in a callable-style form (i.e.
initialized via a static method):
https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/22128Indeed, as pointed out in the issue, similar static methods exist in
classes such asDateTime.I am in favor of introducing such a static method. It would probably
look something like this:// $scale is optional $num = BcMath\Number::createFrom($val, $scale);It would effectively serve as an alias for the constructor.
Incidentally, since this does not introduce any BC break, I do not
believe an RFC is necessary.I would like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
Regards,
Saki
I'm generally a fan of static factory methods like this, so +1 from me. It would also allow it to be partialed by the new PFA syntax, too.
--Larry Garfield
Hi internals!
In this issue, a suggestion was made that it would be convenient if
BcMath\Numbercould be initialized in a callable-style form (i.e. initialized via a static method):
https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/22128Indeed, as pointed out in the issue, similar static methods exist in classes such as
DateTime.I am in favor of introducing such a static method. It would probably look something like this:
// $scale is optional $num = BcMath\Number::createFrom($val, $scale);It would effectively serve as an alias for the constructor.
Incidentally, since this does not introduce any BC break, I do not believe an RFC is necessary.
I would like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this.
I'm against this.
We should instead find a solution to allow FCCs/PFAs to work on constructors and new rather than adding static factories for every possible class in existence.
I restarted work on a PR to clean up the semantics of constructors that, I believe, would make it feasible to allow FCCs/PFAs on new MyClass. [1]
Best regards,
Gina P. Banyard
Hi
Am 2026-05-25 11:07, schrieb Gina P. Banyard:
I'm against this.
We should instead find a solution to allow FCCs/PFAs to work on
constructors and new rather than adding static factories for every
possible class in existence.
I agree with that and had also commented as such on the PR before seeing
this thread.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
We should instead find a solution to allow FCCs/PFAs to work on
constructors and new rather than adding static factories for every
possible class in existence.I restarted work on a PR to clean up the semantics of constructors
that, I believe, would make it feasible to allow FCCs/PFAs on new
MyClass. [1]
The original PFA RFC included constructor support, but it was complicated. It was dropped from the new one that passed in order to simplify things, but I am open to re-adding it if a good approach is found. So it should certainly be possible, just a bit hard.
--Larry Garfield
We should instead find a solution to allow FCCs/PFAs to work on
constructors and new rather than adding static factories for every
possible class in existence.I restarted work on a PR to clean up the semantics of constructors
that, I believe, would make it feasible to allow FCCs/PFAs on new
MyClass. [1]The original PFA RFC included constructor support, but it was complicated. It was dropped from the new one that passed in order to simplify things, but I am open to re-adding it if a good approach is found. So it should certainly be possible, just a bit hard.
--Larry Garfield
An idea that has always played through my head for this, was to add a
syntax-alternative to "new MyClass()" in the form:
"MyClass::__construct()". (In other words, make the constructor
statically callable).
But seeing it was dropped from the initial RFC, it's probably not be as
trivial as it seems.
It could even be argued that the constructor should have been a static
method in the first place.
I only found out today that you can call "->__construct()" on an
existing object. I don't really see a use case for that, to be honest,
and with readonly properties and property-promotion it's a whole
snake-pit all by itself.
Regards,
Bernard
Hey Saki,
I am in favor of introducing such a static method. It would probably look
something like this:// $scale is optional $num = BcMath\Number::createFrom($val, $scale);
I'm overall very much in favor of static factory methods: they are a clear
and established way of doing this in the ecosystem at large, with no
particular drawbacks, and better future BC boundaries.
Important though: ::createFrom() is probably a bad name, and
::fromValueAndScale() or such would allow clearer/future expansion via
other constructors.
Marco Pivetta