To me it seams too similar to:
return !$result['success']?? $result;
Which returns at that point, regardless of the status of $result[’success’];
I think this
if (!$result['success'])
return $result;
Is short enough and is clear when scanning the code that it will not return
anything
Hey Volodymyr,
You can already write:
$success or throw new Exception('I am here');
Honestly, I don't see a good reason to introduce another syntax to do the
same thing.
Kind regards,
Jorg Sowa
Great, thanks
I went through RFC and discussions and there's new findings with throw:
1. *throw when* condition, new Exception('Massage!!!');
- throw when $success, new Exception('I am here');
2. *return when* condition, 'return value';
- return when $success, $result;
- retu
> But often classes need constructors only to set properties. In such cases,
> constructors become redundant.
Actually, the behavior is not the same and the constructors are not redundant.
Taking your example:
```
class Person
{
public string $firstName;
public int $age;
}
$person = new
>
> $person = new Person("Name", 43) {
>
firstName: "John",
>
age: 42
>
};
Hi!
You could achieve similar functionality with a simple user-land method
"assign". If you put such a method on a trait, you can use it everywhere.
See the example:
$propVal) {
$this->$prop
Hi Internals,
I would like to discuss the possibility of assigning multiple public
properties at once during the class initialization.
Currently, with constructor property promotion we've already achieved the
ability to skip a lot of boilerplate code. With property accessors (aka
hooks) we could r
