> On Jun 15, 2021, at 11:06 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 5:02 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com > <mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com>> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: >>> Hi internals, >>> >>> I would like to propose allowing the use of "new" inside various >>> initializer expressions: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/new_in_initializers >>> >>> In particular, this allows specifying object default values for >> properties >>> and parameters, and allows the use of objects as attribute arguments. >>> >>> The RFC is narrow in scope in that it only adds support for "new". An >>> extension to other call kinds should be straightforward though. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Nikita >> >> Hi Nikita. What's the status of this RFC? Are you going to bring it to a >> vote, or is something else blocking it? >> > > I've just pushed a larger update to the RFC, which limits the places where > new is supported. > > Supported: > * Parameter default values (includes promoted properties) > * Attribute arguments > * Static variable initializers > * Global constant initializers > > Not supported: > * Static and non-static property initializers > * Class constant initializers
And I am saddened by the lack of class constant initializers. That's the main use case I am interested in and I had been watching this RFC anxiously for that one reason. . (In particular, because it would allow me to assign classes to constants with __ToString() methods to lazy load information.) > I believe the cases that are now supported should be completely unambiguous > and uncontroversial. Well, at least it is the former. :-) -Mike
