> On 15. Jul 2025, at 01:22, Rob Landers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 5. Inline constructor isn’t necessary and could be proposed separately. I’ve
>> thought recently about this feature
>
> I will probably remove this, to be honest. It was for nesting records inside
> classes or other records, but this feature was declined, so there isn't
> really a need for it.
Hey Rob,
Personally, I was really excited to see inline constructors in the proposal.
And I would go even further than what you proposed.
While you already work on something completely new, why not drop `__construct`
completely?
Dreaming out loud…
```php
record User(string $name, string $emailAddress) => (
// init constructor start
if (!is_valid_email($emailAddress)) { // doesn't require $this
throw new InvalidArgumentException('Invalid email address');
}
$this->id = hash('sha256', $emailAddress);
$this->name = ucwords($name);
// all properties are now immutable
) {
// actual body with everything else
public string $id;
}
```
With that:
- Both constructors would be kept together at the top; not an additional
constructor potentially after some properties and maybe methods.
- An extra level of indentation is avoided because there is no `__construct`
around it.
- Reading doesn’t required `$this` for `$name` and `$emailAddress` because we
are not in an argument-free traditional constructor.
I think the same about the proposed Struct RFC, fwiw. Both care not classes.
So, why not make them more lean than classes, and feel clearly different to
classes?
--
Cheers,
Nick
