On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:34 AM Oliver Nybroe
wrote:
> Hello internals.
>
> I am looking into making the constructor body optional in classes,
> essentially allowing you to write
>
> ```
> class User {
> public function __construct(
> private string $name,
> )
> }
> ```
>
> Curren
On Thursday, 18 July 2024 at 19:23, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> On 7/18/24 16:03, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
>
> > I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break
> > stuff, compared to the minor one, and so I don't see why the minor one
> > would be refused?
>
>
> There is no such thi
Hi
On 7/18/24 17:04, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
I am not top-posting right now? Thank you for giving me a nudge.
To confirm: Yes, this email is not a top post. Top-posting means putting
your reply at the very top of the email, above the quoted bits, instead
of below them. The "gold standard" woul
Hi
On 7/18/24 16:03, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break
stuff, compared to the minor one, and so I don't see why the minor one
would be refused?
There is no such thing as a minor syntax change. Any changes to the
syntax has consequences fo
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 15:48, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
> Since the last time this came up, PSR-12 has been replaced with PER-CS,
> which as of 2.0 now says:
>
> > If a function or method contains no statements or comments (such as an
> empty no-op implementation or when
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:40 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, at 2:03 PM, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
> > I would love to see those improvements as well, however I am surprised
> > we seem to be more inclined to push a more substantial change than a
> > minor one.
> >
> > I feel like t
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, at 2:03 PM, Lily Bergonzat wrote:
> I would love to see those improvements as well, however I am surprised
> we seem to be more inclined to push a more substantial change than a
> minor one.
>
> I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break
> stuff, compar
I would love to see those improvements as well, however I am surprised
we seem to be more inclined to push a more substantial change than a
minor one.
I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break
stuff, compared to the minor one, and so I don't see why the minor one
would be
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, at 10:11 AM, Oliver Nybroe wrote:
> Thanks for sharing previous discussions, I will definitely take a look
> at those before writing up the RFC.
>
>
>> If you do with to go with an RFC, I'd like to see if your proposal
> addresses whether this syntax should implicitly call
>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, at 12:11, Oliver Nybroe wrote:
> Thanks for sharing previous discussions, I will definitely take a look at
> those before writing up the RFC.
>
>
> > If you do with to go with an RFC, I'd like to see if your proposal
> addresses whether this syntax should implicitly call
>
Thanks for sharing previous discussions, I will definitely take a look at
those before writing up the RFC.
> If you do with to go with an RFC, I'd like to see if your proposal
addresses whether this syntax should implicitly call
`parent::__construct()`, and if a semi colon is expected or not
(`pu
I don't view this proposition as a breaking change. The way I
understand it, writing an empty body for a constructor would
still work, but we would also get the option to just omit the
body altogether.
I think it would be a very sensible update. I also think it should
require a semicolon, just so
>
> Hello internals.
>
> I am looking into making the constructor body optional in classes,
> essentially allowing you to write
>
> ```
> class User {
> public function __construct(
> private string $name,
> )
> }
> ```
>
> Currently to make this code valid, it would have to be wri
Hi Oliver!
On 18.07.2024 at 11:21, Oliver Nybroe wrote:
> I am looking into making the constructor body optional in classes,
> essentially allowing you to write
>
> ```
> class User {
> public function __construct(
> private string $name,
> )
> }
> ```
See https://externals.io/me
Hello internals.
I am looking into making the constructor body optional in classes,
essentially allowing you to write
```
class User {
public function __construct(
private string $name,
)
}
```
Currently to make this code valid, it would have to be written the
following way
```
15 matches
Mail list logo
