2017-01-14 15:58 GMT+01:00 Giovanni Giacobbi <giova...@giacobbi.net>:
> I'm surprised no one is raising a strong argument about the
> "parent::__construct()" call, so I'll do it.
>
> I never liked typing "parent::__construct()" to call parent's class
> constructor, but now that this proposal is being discussed (and might even
> be accepted) I would like to throw some more meat to the fire:
>
> <?php
> class C {
> function __construct($a) {
> print "C::__construct() a=$a\n";
> }
> }
> class D extends C {
> function __construct($a, $b) {
> parent::__construct($a, $b); // how it is now
> // parent($a); // how i would like it
> print "D::__construct() a=$a b=$b\n";
> }
> }
> $d = new D(10, 20);
>
> If you go for blocking explicit calls to __construct() (i'm personally in
> favour of it), i hope you would change the syntax for its only legitimate
> use which is calling the parent's constructor within a constructor, so how
> about something like parent(...)?
>
AFAIK parent is a speciual scope which help refers to variables and
functions in base classe
http://php.net/manual/kr/keyword.parent.php
So it looks like proposing your syntax could lead to huge BC break.
In other languages (eg. Java) there is special syntax quite similar with
`super($a, $b)` call.
> It would be ugly to say "You are not supposed to explicit call
> __construct() *ever*" and then "You know what, to initialize parent class
> you need to call __construct()".
>
> The construct method is called automagically when you instantiate the
> class, I don't type something like $d = new D; $d->__construct(10, 20); so
> I don't see why I should type that method name inside my derived
> constructor. I just need a special syntax to do so.
>
> And while I'm at it (a bit offtopic but related to my previous argument)
> how about *not* requiring __construct() to be defined in the parent class?
> I.e. when you call parent::__construct() if there is NO constructor defined
> in the parent class just do nothing instead of going fatal error. I
> *always* wanted this feature, because when you do "new C;" it doesn't go
> fatal error if there is no __construct() defined. I don't think this is
> breaking covariance if you assume that every class defines an empty
> __construct() with no argument. I mean, if you later add an explicit
> constructor to the parent class it *must* be without arguments unless you
> accept you might break something.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On 14 January 2017 at 13:15, Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Am 14.01.2017 um 11:26 schrieb Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com>:
> > >
> > >> On 1/14/2017 11:20 AM, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> > >> Do we as "makers of PHP" want to dictate the user what the "intended"
> > >> behaviour of PHP is? Or are we treating the user as a responsible
> person
> > >> that knows what to do and also not to do?
> > >>
> > >> Personally I'm in favour of the later. Let the user be able to call
> > >> __construct whenever they like. It's a special method which is clearly
> > >> visible by the two underscores at the start. So the users either know
> > >> exactly what they are doing or they need to learn it.
> > >>
> > >> Translated to a different example this discussion is like: "Let's
> remove
> > >> the handle from the window because someone might be able to open the
> > >> window and jump out of it". The handle is there for a valid reason.
> And
> > >> as a window-maker I have no idea in what way it might be used. But I
> > >> have to accept that there are people missusing it. But should I limit
> > >> all those users with a valid use-case for it just to save some from
> > >> missusing it? And if we start with that, where should we stop?
> > >>
> > >> Just my 0.02€
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >>
> > >> Andreas
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, that is exactly the question. This needs to be voted on. Rust
> would
> > > be an example that protects you and C/C++ would be examples that do
> not.
> > > Both approaches are valid approaches.
> > >
> > > Note that the dictation will not always work, this is why e.g. Rust has
> > > unsafe blocks. The corresponding thing in PHP imho would be reflection.
> > > Hence, if someone has a special case:
> > >
> > > - Rust: use unsafe
> > > - PHP: use reflection
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
> >
> > IMHO it already IS safe.
> >
> > In PHP 4 the "constructor" was a method thad had the same name as the
> > class. But now it is a class that has always the same name and is always
> > preceded with two underscores. There is no way to "accidentaly" call that
> > method. You have to explicitly call "__construct" to "break" things.
> >
> > If developers "want" to break something they will find a way. Protecting
> > "__construct" will not stop them from doing so. But it will stop the rest
> > of us do legitimate things.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Giacobbi
>
--
regards / pozdrawiam,
--
Michał Brzuchalski
about.me/brzuchal
brzuchalski.com
