Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
parameters, and no not-promoted parameters.
These would NOT be considered valid:
public function __construct(
private Baz $baz,
Bar $bar
);
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 <nikita....@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis <mrtrei...@gmail.com
<mailto:mrtrei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 work:
<?php
namespace App;
class Foo {
public function __construct(
private Bar $bar,
private Baz $baz
);
}
Some notes to this:
- Since this is similar to already existing syntax for body-less
methods, parser should not be affected that much. I hope. I really
have
no idea.
- Syntax would be optional - meaning, you can as well continue using
empty body, just that in this case the body would be implied empty.
Thoughts?
Regards,
- Matīss
For what it's worth, I've received the same suggestion from quite a
few people. There seems to be an intuitive expectation that only
adding a semicolon will work in this case. Personally, I'm okay with
allowing it.
If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a
promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I don't
think we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the
general case.
Regards,
Nikita
