On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:48 AM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sara, > > > 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. > > Sorry, but I don't follow - so you would prefer that this: > > public function __construct(); > > be valid syntax as well, considering within the scope of the proposed? > Am I reading this right? > > Yes. It might be silly and pointless, but, it doesn't have any negative side effects, so why not? > - Matīss > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:33, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com > > <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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
