On 14/01/2017 14:58, Giovanni Giacobbi wrote:
If you go for blocking explicit calls to __construct() (i'm personally in
favour of it), i hope you would change the syntax for its only legitimate
use which is calling the parent's constructor within a constructor, so how
about something like parent(...)?
It would be ugly to say "You are not supposed to explicit call
__construct() *ever*" and then "You know what, to initialize parent class
you need to call __construct()".
This is actually a very good point: if you ban calls to __construct, you
need syntax for not only calling the parent constructor, but other
constructors in the chain. For instance [https://3v4l.org/jTsek]:
<?php
class A
{
public function __construct() {
echo 'A';
}
}
class B extends A
{
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
echo 'B';
}
}
class C extends B
{
public function __construct() {
// Skip parent constructor, but call grand-parent
A::__construct();
echo 'C';
}
}
new C;
Probably you could say "cannot call __construct directly, except in the
__construct of a descendant class", but that all seems a bit fiddly.
I'm on the -1 side on this proposal, because the logical conclusion
would be that all magic methods should be banned: __clone was already
mentioned, but should you really be calling $foo->__get($bar) directly?
If so, why is that more legitimate than $foo->__construct? And if not,
do you allow parent::__get($bar), or do you insist on that using
different syntax as well? (If you think the answers are easy for __get,
pick a different magic method and ask the same questions).
These exceptions and special cases are going to proliferate, and all to
stop a hypothetical "misuse" of the language. Do you have an example of
a bug you've seen where a user acting reasonably would have been saved
by this new prohibition?
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
