Re: Re: [RFC] Constructor Property Promotion

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:26 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:52, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Please tell me if you have further concerns > > Question - as this is just sugar, presumably it doesn't add much > complexity to the PHP engine? > Yes, the implementation complexity for this feature is minimal, as these things go. > Vague concern - because it's a novel syntax, I find it hard to read, > particularly when there are comments* for the properties. Do you think > I'll just get used to it, or is it likely to be an ongoing issue? > Well, I can't really answer this with confidence, but given the number of people who told me how much they love this feature in TypeScript, I would hazard that you would indeed get used to it. > Also, in five years time, if we have structs**, people will be > wondering why we bothered with this. But I think it does make life > easier for developers in the meantime. > When we discussed this topic in chat last time, I got the feeling that the rough consensus was that introducing "structs" as a feature distinct from classes is a bad idea, and we should instead try to make relevant features available for classes. Constructor promotion is one of those :) > class UrlToPdfProcessor > { > public function __construct( > // The full url to reach the instance of chrome running in > headless mode. > public string $chromeUrl, > > // A path to a directory where the output PDF will be written to. > // It must already exist and be writeable by the process running > // the PDF processor. > public string $tmpPath, > > // The internal domain name for the site to be rendered. > // The domain name should not contain either protocol or path > // components > string $internalDomain > ) { > } > } > As suggested in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constructor_promotion#coding_style_considerations, my recommendation is to use normal @param annotations for constructor arguments, as we do now. While interleaving parameters and comments is certainly possible (already), it's certainly not common style, and I don't think it will become common style with constructor promotion. Regards, Nikita