Hey Tim,
On 14.07.26 00:56, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Hi
On 2026-07-13 19:52, Nick Sdot wrote:
Not exactly sure what you would like me to spell me out. It's indeed
different things. I made a tiny addition to the non-goals. Let me
know if that's enough or if you had something else in mind.
That works for me, thanks. The concern I had was just that “default
values for constructor property promotion are special” and thus
spelling it out once more that they are special, but that the RFC will
not introduce new specialness is a good thing.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Got it. Yes, no specialities. In case you deem it necessary I could add
an assertion to an existing test. Something like:
```
class Foo { public function __construct( public readonly string $a =
'bar') {} }
var_dump(new
ReflectionClass(Foo::class)->getProperty('a')->hasDefaultValue()) //
bool(false)
```
To me it feels just not too related, and in other reviews I got
commented for over-testing.
But up to you. Feel free to let me know.
Maybe "no specialities" can "promote" you from team abstain to team yes. ;)
--
Cheers
Nick
