On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:17 PM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only > ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted > parameters, and no not-promoted parameters. > > These would NOT be considered valid: > > public function __construct( > private Baz $baz, > Bar $bar > ); > > public function __construct(); > > public function __construct(Baz $baz); > > as well as anything not related to __construct. > > - Matīss > I've put up a quick implementation for this: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6972 As this seems somewhat controversial, I'm afraid this change will have to go through the RFC process. Nikita > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:58, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks >> like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small, >> cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to do >> away with empty constructor body. >> >> Here's an example of how this would work: >> >> <?php >> namespace App; >> >> class Foo { >> public function __construct( >> private Bar $bar, >> private Baz $baz >> ); >> } >> >> Some notes to this: >> >> - Since this is similar to already existing syntax for body-less >> methods, parser should not be affected that much. I hope. I really have >> no idea. >> - Syntax would be optional - meaning, you can as well continue using >> empty body, just that in this case the body would be implied empty. >> >> Thoughts? >> Regards, >> - Matīss >> > > For what it's worth, I've received the same suggestion from quite a few > people. There seems to be an intuitive expectation that only adding a > semicolon will work in this case. Personally, I'm okay with allowing it. > > If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a > promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I don't think > we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case. > > Regards, > Nikita > >
