Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Make constructors and destructors return void

Hey Bob, Magic methods are **never** supposed to be called directly (even more if that method is a constructor or a destructor). If that's not the case, it's just plain bad code. But by enforcing these rules, we make sure that less of that (bad code) is written and as a result, we make PHP code less bug-prone and easier to debug. That's also most likely the reason why "ensure magic methods' signature" RFC opted in to validate __clone method's signature and ensure that it has void return type. Just for the sake of making sure that you understand what I mean, here are a couple of examples that show that no magic method is ever supposed to be called directly: ```php // __toString (string) $object; // __invoke $object(); // __serialize serialize($object); ``` Moreover, by validating constructors/destructors and allowing an explicit void return type declaration, we are becoming much more consistent (something that PHP is striving for) with other magic methods (e. g. __clone). Also, saying that "sometimes you have valid information to pass from the parent class" is quite an overstatement. After analyzing most of the 95 Composer packages that had a potential BC break, I found out that either they wanted to return early (that is still possible to do using return;) or they added a return something; for no reason. Thus, no libraries actually returned something useful and valid from a constructor (as they shouldn't). Last but certainly not least, constructors have one and only one responsibility - to initialize an object. Whether you read Wikipedia's or PHP manual's definition, a constructor does just that. It initializes. So, the PHP manual is perfectly correct and documents the correct return type that a constructor should have. Best regards, Benas On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 4:06 PM Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Am 17.06.2020 um 01:10 schrieb Benas IML <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>: > > > > Hey internals, > > > > This is a completely refined, follow-up RFC to my original RFC. Based on > the > > feedback I have received, this PR implements full validation and > implicitly > > enforces void rules on constructors/destructors while also > > allowing to > > declare an **optional** explicit void return type. Note, > > that there is > a > > small but justifiable BC break (as stated by the RFC). > > > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/make_ctor_ret_void > > > > Best regards, > > Benas Seliuginas > > Hey Benas, > > I do not see any particular benefit from that RFC. > > Regarding what the manual states - the manual is wrong there and thus > should be fixed in the manual. This is not an argument for changing engine > behaviour. > > Sometimes a constructor (esp. of a parent class) or destructor may be > called manually. Sometimes you have valid information to pass from the > parent class. > With your RFC an arbitrary restriction is introduced necessitating an > extra method instead. > > In general that RFC feels like "uh, __construct and __destruct are mostly > void, so let's enforce it … because we can"? > > On these grounds and it being an additional (albeit mostly small) > unnecessary BC break, I'm not in favor of that RFC. > > Bob