On Tue, Jul 15, 2025, at 20:07, Dmitry Derepko wrote: > Hi, > > I've found a discussion about Records https://externals.io/message/125975 and > found a one key point which I really like in Kotlin (hello): short > constructors. > > Rob said that short constructor will be probably removed: >> 1. 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 feature was declined, so there isn't > really a need for it. > > > Whether it's true or not I've played with syntax analyser and created a > sugared polyfill for short constructors: > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19133 > > Many examples of how it works inside the PR, just read them. > > Should I propose the RFC or not? > > This step move us further to "light" structures or "heavy" structures written > "simple": > > class RedBox extends Box(width: 50, height: 200); > > $box = new RedBox(); > > instead of > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function __construct() > { > parent::__construct(width: 50, height: 200); > } > } > > OR > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function getWidth(): int > { > return 50; > } > > public function getHeight(): int > { > return 200; > } > } > > OR even with Single Expression Functions RFC: > > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function getWidth(): int => 50; > > public function getHeight(): int => 200; > } > > > -- > Best regards, > Dmitrii Derepko. > @xepozz
Hi Dmitrii, I meant that I'd remove it from the records RFC, not that I wouldn't ever pick it up. In fact, I put it on my todo list and announced it to this list, 7 months ago: https://externals.io/message/125975#126029 Fun fact: it was a part of my original proposal with nested classes that then got removed due to feedback. Why I haven't proposed it as a separate RFC: with PSR-4 being so popular, nobody is going to write one-line files to take advantage of this. Thus, when I was going to revisit nested classes later this year (after all the release shenanigans and some personal issues), I was planning to add this feature to the nested class v2 RFC (again). A lot of feedback I got on nested classes was "when would I use this?" -- and I suspect that would be a lot of the feedback you'd get here (see: PSR-4). I'm more convinced than ever that short constructors and nested classes create a chicken-and-egg problem. They only really make sense together; at least with our current coding conventions and standards. It will create a longer discussion period, but that's fine, IMHO. If you'd like to continue with this RFC, I'd love to discuss it further with you and help you out. I believe it is a bit more than "just" syntax sugar, but I'd have to dig out my records implementation. — Rob
