On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:22 AM Larry Garfield
wrote:
>
> To answer the original question: I'm not against this change, but as it is
> a syntax change, I think it does warrant an RFC, even if it's a small/easy
> one. That's a good way to flesh out the edge cases like that.
>
> --Larry Garfield
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, at 2:29 PM, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
>>> Yes, that would result in constructor property promotion. I'll need to
>>> retarget the original PR for master, but at
>>> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17861 you can see in
>>> `Zend/tests/property_hooks/final_prop_promoted_2.p
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:30 PM Daniel Scherzer
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:45 AM Alexandru Pătrănescu
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:20 PM Daniel Scherzer <
>> daniel.e.scher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:07 AM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>>>
Can you
Hi
Am 2025-03-20 21:12, schrieb Daniel Scherzer:
I recently found out that constructor property promotion cannot be
used
for final properties. I propose that it become allowed. Thoughts?
Would
this need an RFC, or is this minor enough to be acceptable with just a
mailing list discussion?
Gi
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:45 AM Alexandru Pătrănescu
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:20 PM Daniel Scherzer <
> daniel.e.scher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:07 AM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>>
>>> Can you clarify if the following would result in constructor property
>>> promo
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:07 AM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Can you clarify if the following would result in constructor property
> promotion or not:
>
> class Foo {
> public function __construct(
> final string $bar,
> ) { }
> }
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhu
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:20 PM Daniel Scherzer
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 4:07 AM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify if the following would result in constructor property
>> promotion or not:
>>
>> class Foo {
>> public function __construct(
>> final stri
