> I don't like how it works for anonymous classes. It's more difficult to
>> implement since the compiler doesn't know the meaning of the (first)
>> bracket. It's doesn't make the code more readable, for the same reason. I
>> think it's better to not support this syntax with anonymous classes.
>>
>>
> Probably lexical scope for anon classes would be better here, but due to
> fact that proposal is to
> use initializer block instead of constructor arguments, that was the
> reason why initializer block
> got before anon class definitions.
>
This adds a lot of complexity to the implementation for very little
benefit, as the code (as presented for anonymous classes) is
really confusing.
>
>> The examples do not show how constructor arguments are passed. I'm
>> assuming
>> it's
>>
>> $customer = new Customer("foo") {
>> name = "John"
>> };
>>
>>
> The examples don't show that cause it's forbidden.
> There is a note on that in RFC on purpose
>
> > Note! Object instantiation allows only constructors without required
> arguments to be used.
> > Any class which requires passing arguments to constructor cannot be used
> in combination with object initializer.
>
> Using constructor arguments and object initializer would introduce noise
> and you'll be potentially initializing object twice:
> using object initializer block and using constructor args what may be
> misleading.
>
I don't see any technical limitation to justify this.
$user = new User($organization) {
name = "John Doe",
email = "[email protected]",
};
Is just equivalent to
$user = new User($organization);
$user->name = "John Doe";
$user->email = "[email protected]";
> Setting the properties does not interfere with the constructor. This is
also confirmed by
> constructors are called before initialization takes apart
You may use constructor argument `$organization` to setup the object.
The initiate syntax isn't a replacement for the constructor, it's a
replacement for setting properties after the object has been constructed.
> Ok, I will let Arnold reply to you on this if he feels that your reply did
> not address his concerns.
>
>
Omitting stdClass is outside the scope of the current RFC. I'm inclined not
to discuss it further or take it into consideration for this RFC. New RFC,
new discussion.
However, I do agree with Mike that using `=>` is more intuitive. It's not
specific to array key pairs, because you only use that syntax at
initialization of the array.
$user = [
'name' => "John Doe",
'email' => "[email protected]",
];
and
$user = [];
$user['name'] = "John Doe";
$user['email'] = "[email protected]";
The following feels similar
$user = new User {
name => "John Doe",
email => "[email protected]",
};
and
$user = new User;
$user->name = "John Doe";
$user->email = "[email protected]";
