On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:50 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, at 9:34 PM, Erick de Azevedo Lima wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> >> Em sex., 7 de jun. de 2024 às 17:53, Pierre <pierre-...@processus.org>
> escreveu:
> >> I do agree with you that when you use value objects, you need it a lot,
> >> but I'd much prefer having a JS like value objects initializer syntax,
> >> such as `Point {x: 1, y: 2}` syntax than creating another way to call
> >> the constructor, which already has a mastered and comprehensive syntax
> >> which is simply `new`.
> >
> > I also think that `new `(4 chars, if we count the blank space) is short
> > enough.
> > But a JS-like syntax that's already known for representing objects
> > could be used.
> > I'm sympathetic to something like this (changing the OP examples):
> >
> > class A {
> > public function b() {
> > echo "I'm B";
> > }
> > }
> >
> > A::{}->b();
> >
> >
> > class Foo {
> > public function __construct(
> > public string $name
> > ) {}
> > }
> >
> > class Bar {
> > public function __construct(
> > public Foo $foo
> > ) {}
> > }
> >
> > $bar = Bar::{ Foo::{ "I'm foo in bar" } };
> > echo $bar->foo->name;
> >
> >
> > #[AttributeOverrides([
> > AttributeOverride::{
> > name: "id",
> > column: Column::{ name: "guest_id", type: "integer", length:
> > 140 }
> > },
> > AttributeOverride::{
> > name: "name",
> > column: Column::{ name: "guest_name", nullable: false, unique:
> > true, length: 240 }
> > }]
> > )]
> >
> >
> > #[AttributeOverrides([
> > AttributeOverride::{
> > name: "id",
> > column: Column::{ name: "guest_id", type: "integer", length:
> > 140 }
> > },
> > AttributeOverride::{
> > name: "name",
> > column: Column::{ name: "guest_name", nullable: false, unique:
> > true, length: 240 }
> > }]
> > )]
> >
> > --
> > Erick
>
> We already have named arguments, which gives nearly the same syntax.
> Writing directly to properties like that makes no sense in a language that
> has class-private properties and internal constructors. It's fine in Rust
> or Go that don't have internal constructors, but it's just not a good fit
> in a PHP-like language.
>
> And new Foo(a: 'A", b: 'B") is already perfectly readable and
> self-documenting. Yet another constructor-invoke syntax on top of that
> would offer nothing.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
Currently there are 3 ways that I mostly see to create objects:
- `new Reponse(...)`, through a public `__construct`
- `Response::create(...)`, some static constructor that can be named
anything
- `response(...)`, where it's basically just a function making the object
I personally don't really use functions for this, it's not for me. I do
however often create static constructors and this means that I basically
have 2 ways of creating objects. Sometimes I wish `Response::new()` would
call the `__construct` variant, just so I could have all my constructors
use the same syntax. I could make the default constructor private and force
a second static function, but that feels like a lot of extra useless work.
