> Perhaps there should be a new rule which says that invoking a constructor > with anything other than "new" or "parent::__contruct()" > should be illegal, in which case this situation would generate an error.
Now this would break a lot of code that $obj->__construct(); or $this->__construct(); And I've seen a lot of it. 2015-01-18 9:33 GMT-03:00 Tony Marston <tonymars...@hotmail.com>: > "Andrea Faulds" wrote in message > news:d554c8b8-0bfb-44f7-b23e-8bfc12ae2...@ajf.me... >> >> >> Hey Rowan, >> >>> On 17 Jan 2015, at 19:40, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 17/01/2015 18:33, Todd Ruth wrote: > > > <<snip>> > > >>> I don't think using __construct over named-method for constructors really >>> has anything to do with "OOP fundamentalism"; it was a design change to make >>> certain things simpler (like parent::__construct), and more consistent (all >>> reserved magic methods begin with __, so any method not beginning with that >>> is safe to use however you like). >> >> >> To add on to what you said, there’s also a quite important benefit that >> __construct is a lot more obvious in what it does. >> >> Looking at the following code: >> >> class Foo { >> public $foo, >> $bar, >> $qux; >> public function foobar() { >> // ... >> } >> public function bar() { >> // ... >> } >> public function foo() { >> // ... >> } >> public function baz() { >> // ... >> } >> public function qux() { >> // ... >> } >> } >> >> It’s not easy to spot the constructor at a glance, and it’s very easy to >> miss. >> >> Compare that to the following: >> >> class Foo { >> public $foo, >> $bar, >> $qux; >> public function foobar() { >> // ... >> } >> public function bar() { >> // ... >> } >> public function __construct() { >> // ... >> } >> public function baz() { >> // ... >> } >> public function qux() { >> // ... >> } >> } >> >> Far more obvious. > > > If a developer cannot read valid code then it is a developer problem. It is > not up to the language to dictate style - it provides the functions and > features while style and readability are the sole responsibility of the > individual developer. > >> This actually tripped me up on more than one occasion when updating tests >> broken by the removal of PHP 4 constructors in php-src. > > > Perhaps this issue can be solved by the RFC on Default Constructors? See > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/default_ctor > >> Sure, the constructor should probably be the first method, but *even if it >> is* it’s still nowhere near as obvious in PHP 4 style. >> >> Similarly, what does the following do? >> >> $this->foo(); >> >> It looks like a normal method call, and it is in a sense. But if you’re in >> Bar and inheriting from Foo, that’s a call to the parent class’s >> constructor! > > > Perhaps there should be a new rule which says that invoking a constructor > with anything other than "new" or "parent::__contruct()" should be illegal, > in which case this situation would generate an error. > >> The following is much more obvious: >> >> parent::__construct(); >> >> I think it’s pretty clear why we changed to PHP5-style constructors. >> They’re just a lot more recognisable. :) >> -- >> Andrea Faulds >> http://ajf.me/ >> >> >> > > -- > Tony Marston > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
