Re: Raising the precedence of the new operator
> On Apr 5, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5, 2021, at 11:40, André Hänsel <andre@webkr.de> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering... PHP is the only language I know of where you have to
>> write (new Foo())->bar() instead of
>> new Foo()->bar(). This is particularly apparent with the builder pattern:
>>
>> $developer->drink((new Coffee())->withCream()->withSugar());
>> $logger->log((new LogMessage())->withMessage('Coffee was drunk'));
>>
>> Since new Foo()->bar() cannot (and probably should not) be used to
>> "dynamically instantiate a new thing of the class
>> name returned by function Foo()", it seems like it would be no problem to
>> change the precedence rules so that
>> new Foo()->bar() means "instantiate a new Foo and call bar() on
>> it".
>>
>> It's currently a syntax error, so allowing it would be automatically
>> compatible.
>>
>> Has this ever been discussed before?
>
>
> Mike Schinkel and I recently discussed this off-list. Mike, now’s your
> time to chime in with your ideas on this. :-)
Thanks for the invite.
I had asked Ben what he thought about allowing the following syntax as a synonym for new
Foo():
Foo::new()
That would be backward compatible because you currently cannot have a method named
new().
> My $0.02 is that this is unnecessary, but I can see how others might
> want it to avoid parenthesis soup.
Yes, off list Ben said he did not see the need for it, so I did not bring it up on the list.
But now since he has invited me to... :-)
If we had such syntax then that would also Andre and others to use (and reduce the necessity of
needing so many parens:
Foo::new()->bar()
Thoughts?
-Mike
Thread (14 messages)