Hey Rob,
On 29.06.26 19:03, Rob Landers wrote:
Hi, Nick,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026, at 10:47, Nick Sdot wrote:
Hey Rowan,
On 29.06.26 16:00, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> On 29/06/2026 07:31, Nick Sdot wrote:
>>
>> If "use conventional constructors, if you need `readonly` classes"
>> stands, then the same can be argued for everything else in the RFC.
>>
>
> For the record, my view is completely the opposite: if the new syntax
> allows everything a normal constructor does, just in a slightly
> different position, it will lead to endless style discussions of which
> to use.
That's a fair opinion, and not unexpected. Personally, I oppose
introducing more inconsistencies to PHP. Looks like that we need to have
these discussions then?
There's no inconsistency here.
The inconsistency is that we will have two kind of constructors. One
that has a body, one has not. It's a completely new concept, but you
talk about syntax sugar.
It only prevents you from initialization/validation in a body because
there are no bodies.
Right. Which makes them useless in endless situations.
If you need a body, use a constructor -- that's what they're for.
But then I cannot benefit from the position (at the top of the class) of
the primary constructors, which I really would like. Shouldn't we try to
make each new feature as useful as possible? What are the actual
blockers to not support primary constructor bodies?
The RFC makes it plain that bodies are rejected and why.
It's possible that I missed where the "why" was explained, but I don't
see explanations apart from "expressed in property hooks"; which I am
here pointing out will not work in readonly classes. Could you please
make the "why" more clear in the RFC?
If you can provide a concrete reason why they should be allowed with a
completely new syntax, that would be a good follow-up RFC; or even a
competing one. If you disagree with the reasoning, I'd love to hear it.
The concrete reason is what I already mentioned: it will not work with
readonly classes and `private(set)` is not the same.
It's not that readonly for value projects is a rare thing.
— Rob
--
Cheers
Nick
