On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:34 AM Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> 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). > > > I agree. I think making things inconsistent between constructors and other methods is something that can be lived with - there are already other things special about constructors that don't apply to other methods - but we should at least allow consistency among constructors and allow the trailing semicolon in all cases. > > 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 > -- Chase Peeler chasepee...@gmail.com
