On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM 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. >
Hard disagree. While it's certainly silly/pointless to have a nil constructor when there are non-promoted args present, I think that deliberately making that mode special (read: inconsistent) is the wrong way to go. > These would NOT be considered valid: > public function __construct(); > For example, Niki's reply showed a place where that mode is perfectly reasonable (singleton finals). If you must have this syntactic sugar, then please make it consistent. > as well as anything not related to __construct. > I'd be willing to go along with inconsistency since once you allow syntax you can't unallow it without pain. So while I don't love the tack, I'll follow it if we do this feature. (which IMO we shouldn't). On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:59 AM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com> wrote: > If there are no super strong arguments on why this should not happen or go > to RFC, I will draft a RFC and from there, the usual process applies. > I think you've heard a number of strong arguments why it should not happen, but I also think this deserves its chance to be fleshed out and voted on, so by all means, do work the RFC. -Sara
