On 22.06.26 17:38, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
I don't think we should add extra syntax to the language just to change
people's habits. If you want a constructor body as the first thing in the
class, you can do that right now.
In your proposed syntax, it puts an arbitrary amount of code between the class name and the
"extends" and "implements" clauses, which seems to go against the aim.
We could just let the "extends" clause include parameters from a separate
constructor:
```php
readonly class Point extends Base($id) {
public function __construct(public int $x, int $id = 0) {
// normal constructor body behaviour
}
// class body
}
```
That does raise a question of sequencing though: it implies the parent
constructor is run automatically, but is that *before* or *after* the child
constructor?
On the whole, just making the new syntax "all or nothing" does seem a safer
option.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
Hey Rowan,
In your proposed syntax, it puts an arbitrary amount of code between the class name and the
"extends" and "implements" clauses, which seems to go against the aim.
I do not have any strong feelings on how it should look like. Let's say
it would be:
```
readonly class Point(public int $x, int $id = 0) extends Base($id)
implements Foo {
// normal constructor body behaviour
} => {
// class body
}
```
Also fine. Beautiful, in fact.
```php
readonly class Point extends Base($id) {
public function __construct(public int $x, int $id = 0) {
// normal constructor body behaviour
}
// class body
}
```
That does raise a question of sequencing though: it implies the parent
constructor is run automatically, but is that *before* or *after* the child
constructor?
According to Robs proposal `__construct` is disallowed.
The before/after question is general and not exclusive to what I asked,
I believe?
But yes, I also thought about it. There are multiple options, I have two
for now:
A) `Base($id)` will not work in combination with `=> {}` (or ` {} =>`);
parent controller would need to be called as in `__construct`
B) Control it via `Base($id)` and `Base($this->id)`
But I guess we would first need to hear from Rob how it is supposed to
work without my addition.
On the whole, just making the new syntax "all or nothing" does seem a safer
option.
But how to solve the `readonly` issue? I think if we have a chance for
some new neat syntax -- and solve a problem with it, why not?
---
Cheers
Nick
