On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:31 PM Robert Landers <landers.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:10 AM Valentin Udaltsov > <udaltsov.valen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone have additional feedback? I'd like to start voting on > Thursday, April 25th. > > I've also added a section on other syntax ideas that have been expressed > on Twitter and in the PR: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/new_without_parentheses#other_syntax_ideas > > -- > > Valentin > > I suspect this will break (badly written) reflection in interesting ways: > > https://3v4l.org/mcSNH > > This basically breaks dereferencing order of operations and makes it > inconsistent. > Quote from RFC: "RFC still does not allow to omit parentheses around the new expression *without* constructor arguments' parentheses, because in some cases this leads to an ambiguity" And actually it mentions a list in the RFC: // Instantiate and then access the instance or instantiate the result of the expression?new MyClass::CONSTANT <http://www.php.net/constant>;new MyClass::$staticProperty;new $myClass::CONSTANT <http://www.php.net/constant>;new $myClass::$staticProperty;new $myClass->property;new $myClass->method(); But actually from all of those, right now, only "new MyClass::CONSTANT <http://www.php.net/constant>;" and "*new* $myClass::CONSTANT <http://www.php.net/constant>;" are not working, while the other 4 are working fine. So yeah, this needs clarification if they continue to work as they work right now: https://3v4l.org/PmCfR Thanks, Alex
