On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, at 13:02, Nick wrote:
>
>> On 17. Nov 2024, at 06:14, Rob Landers wrote:
>>
>> Hello internals,
>>
>> I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
>>
>> Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects.
> On 17. Nov 2024, at 06:14, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
>
> Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects. These are
> superior to read-only classes due to hav
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025, at 19:05, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Not sure it's really a contribution to the discussion but in case you missed
> it, you can make public properties "public(set)":
>
> final readonly class Response {
> public function __construct(
> public public(set) int $statusC
> On 15. Jul 2025, at 01:22, Rob Landers wrote:
>
>> 5. Inline constructor isn’t necessary and could be proposed separately. I’ve
>> thought recently about this feature
>
> I will probably remove this, to be honest. It was for nesting records inside
> classes or other records, but this featur
Le lun. 14 juil. 2025 à 20:26, Rob Landers a écrit :
> Hey Dmitry,
>
> Please remember to bottom post!
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025, at 11:16, Dmitry Derepko wrote:
>
> Hi, Rob!
>
> I'm just wondering, why the implementation differs from a regular class?
>
> Record makes a "class" immutable and uniqu
Hey Dmitry,
Please remember to bottom post!
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025, at 11:16, Dmitry Derepko wrote:
> Hi, Rob!
>
> I'm just wondering, why the implementation differs from a regular class?
>
> Record makes a "class" immutable and unique, using field value comparison
> instead of object refs. It
Hi, Rob!
I'm just wondering, why the implementation differs from a regular class?
Record makes a "class" immutable and unique, using field value comparison
instead of object refs. It has a custom `with` method which is similar to the
new `clone` operator accepted recently. I'd suggest not intr
> On 17. Nov 2024, at 06:14, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
>
> Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects. These are
> superior to read-only classes due to hav
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, at 08:21, Larry Garfield wrote:
> I would far prefer assembling record-ish behavior myself, using the smaller
> parts above. Eg:
>
> final readonly data class Point(int $x, int $y);
>
> "final" prevents extension. "readonly" makes it immutable. "data" gives it
> value-p
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024, at 5:56 AM, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> niedz., 17 lis 2024 o 08:24 Larry Garfield
> napisał(a):
>> ...
>> I can see the benefit of an inline constructor. Kotlin has something
>> similar. But I can see the benefit of it for all classes, even service
Hi Larry,
niedz., 17 lis 2024 o 08:24 Larry Garfield
napisał(a):
> ...
> I can see the benefit of an inline constructor. Kotlin has something
> similar. But I can see the benefit of it for all classes, even service
> classes, not just records. (In Kotlin, it's used for service classes all
> t
Hi Rob and Ilia
Thank you both for your detailed proposals and the efforts you put into
shaping this important feature for PHP It is clear a lot of thought has
gone into both approaches and I appreciate the opportunity to share my
thoughts.
niedz., 17 lis 2024 o 01:17 Ilija Tovilo
napisał(a):
>
Hi Rob,
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, it does look like a nice solution
for adding custom value objects to the language; on the other hand, it's
a lot of things that are "just slightly different" for users to get used to.
On 17/11/2024 21:30, Rob Landers wrote:
One of the main reaso
Hello Ilija and Larry,
You both touch upon some interesting and similar thoughts, and it may be worth
sharing how I arrived here; at least so we have some shared context:
Personally, I feel that classes are quite bloated with features and what
feature works with what is quite confusing for new
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024, at 5:14 PM, Rob Landers wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
>
> Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects.
> These are superior to read-only classes due to havin
Hi Rob
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:15 AM Rob Landers wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
Thanks for your proposal. I very much agree that value semantics are a
highly desirable feature. I sent out my con
Hello internals,
I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records"
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records!
Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects. These are
superior to read-only classes due to having value semantics and far less
boilerplate, for most things deve
17 matches
Mail list logo
