blic function __construct();
be valid syntax as well, considering within the scope of the proposed?
Am I reading this right?
- Matīss
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:33, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM Matīss Treinis <mailto:mrtrei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Yes, just t
usual process applies.
- Matīss
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:17 PM Matīss Treinis
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
>> ever apply to promoted constructors that ha
);
public function __construct();
public function __construct(Baz $baz);
as well as anything not related to __construct.
- Matīss
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:58, Nikita Popov
wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis <mailto:mrtrei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi
like the one had for attribute syntax.
Let's gather some feedback and see.
- Matīss
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:55 AM Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:50 AM Matīss Treinis
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> I am not sure, that's why I am asking for
dering that?
>
> Marco Pivetta
>
> http://twitter.com/Ocramius
>
> http://ocramius.github.com/
>
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, a
Hi everyone,
Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks
like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small,
cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to do
away with empty constructor body.
Here's an example of how this would wo
