On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:27 AM Viktor Khramov <dev.999.vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Decision::createFromId($uuid, $comment); > Decision::createFromMail($subject, $body); > Decision::createFromSome($a, $b, $c); > Decision::createFromAnother($a); > > This doesn't look like constructors. It will be hard to read the > class, it will take time to come up with a name, it's not right. I > have different colors for functions and magic methods in my IDE, > __construct is always in focus. > > new Decision($uuid, $comment); > new Decision($subject, $body); > > This makes it much easier to quickly understand what is going on. > > вт, 18 февр. 2025 г. в 11:03, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop....@rwec.co.uk > >: > > > > > > > > On 17 February 2025 14:39:42 GMT, Viktor Khramov < > dev.999.vic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi! > > > > > >The point is here: > > >https://gist.github.com/vhood/665418835e65be26d5a818fded92ab75 > > > > > > >Static functions look awful and break the object's API. > > > > Personally, I think quite the opposite: named constructors make a lot > more sense than type-based overloads. For instance, you might have both > createFromJson and createFromYaml; their inputs are both going to be > "string" as far as the type system is concerned, so overloading would be > useless. > > > > Swift gets around this using "argument labels" which is sort of like > requiring named arguments and despatching based on those names, but I > believe is actually derived from SmallTalk's multipart method names. > > > > Delphi is more explicit: a constructor is any class method marked with > "constructor" in its declaration, and the name "Create" is just a > convention. It does also support overloading on types, so other names are > rarely used, which is a shame. > > > > In your example, instead of this meaning different things based on what > $a happens to hold: > > > > $decision = new Decision($a, $b); > > > > You could write one of these to be clear: > > > > $decision = Decision::createFromId($a, $b); > > $decision = Decision::createFromMail($a, $b); > > > > > > Even if someone were to come up with a working implementation of > overloading in PHP's type system, I would probably oppose it, because I > think it makes code harder to read and reason about. > > > > Regards, > > Rowan Tommins > > [IMSoP] > My only "issue" with static constructors is that it's unclear what you can do, especially if you mix constructors with static constructors. Typing "new TheClass" in PhpStorm for example won't show if the constructor is protected/private based on the scope, and won't show all possible constructors. On the other hand if type `TheClass::` PhpStorm won't show you the normal constructor and none at all if you don't have any static functions. I don't know if there's a good solution to this problem though. Could look into: - `[#Constructor]` attributes - allowing "constructor" instead of "function" when defining the function - these possibly have more benefits such as with-ers and non-static factory methods on other objects While I'd love to have a better way to quickly know what functions are constructors, I don't know if this is something that should be solved in the language.
