Re: RFC proposal : "new" keyword shorthand

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, at 21:02, Andreas Hennings wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 20:31, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, at 5:56 PM, ericmann@php.net wrote: > > > > >> Instead of ~ (which reminds me of the pendulum of symbols to written to symbols > > >> and back again every 10ish years; “or” vs “||”), why not make a shorthand way to write a > > >> function that calls a constructor (kinda sorta like C# extension methods)? Something kinda like: > > >> > > >> class MyClass implements Invocable { > > >> public function __construct($i) {} > > >> } > > >> > > >> MyClass($i); > > >> > > >> Where the Invocable interface defines a function of the same class name in the > > >> namespace that is an alias for a new objects and forwards args to the constructor. This could be > > >> quite handy for value objects. > > >> > > >> I’m not necessarily a fan of magic or symbols, but just tossing it out there to > > >> spark ideas. > > >> > > >> — Rob > > > -- > > > > > > I'm not a fan of using ~ for this shorthand, due to the same issues > > > that have been brought up elsewhere (i.e. it already has meaning). But > > > the idea of a new interface auto-defining a function of the same name > > > is attractive. It's something I've done manually to mirror code in PHP > > > from other implementations existing in Scala leveraging case classes. > > > > > > https://docs.scala-lang.org/tour/case-classes.html > > > for anyone > > > unfamiliar with the construct: > > > > > > ``` > > > case class Book(isbn: String) > > > > > > val frankenstein = Book("978-0486282114") > > > ``` > > > > > > Doing something like this in PHP is a bit more ... verbose today: > > > > > > ``` > > > class Book > > > { > > > public function __construct(public string $isbn) {} > > > } > > > > > > function Book(string $isbn): Book > > > { > > > return new Book($isbn); > > > } > > > > > > $frankenstein = Book("978-0486282114") > > > ``` > > > > > > That's a lot of boilerplate for the shorthand to not require a > > > new > > > keyword. Which is to say, I both agree in principle with the RFC and > > > think this would add value (particularly if I could extend the default > > > behavior of this kind of interface to support immutability, comparison, > > > etc similar to Scala case classes). I'm just not a fan of the current ~ > > > proposal. > > > > > > ~Eric > > > > The issue with auto-generating a function constructor for a class is that we still > > don't have function autoloading. Which means this: > > > > // Point.php > > > > #[MakeFactoryFunction] (or whatever) > > class Point { > > public function __construct(public int $x, public int $y) {} > > } > > > > // index.php > > > > $p = Point(4, 5); > > > > will look for a function named "Point", not find one defined yet, and fatal. > > > > If we had function autoloading, that would work, assuming a reasonable generic autoloader > > for that case could be written. Who was it that's been talking about that for a while? :-) > > > > Or if we had some marker to indicate "this function call is a wrapper for a class so > > autoload it like a class", that could then trigger the class autoloader. But... that's > > basically what the original ~ proposal is, in the end. Though I agree that ~ is not a great symbol > > for it. PHP has, sadly, run out of unused symbols. (I've run into this a couple of times > > now.) > > > > --Larry Garfield > > > > Hello Benoit. > others already pointed out problems with the $obj = ~C(); > syntax, > but also with the other option, $obj = C();. > > Personally I would prefer a suffix operator that would look similar to > a static method call. > This would make it a lot easier to switch between calling a static > factory and "new." > > Unfortunately, $obj = C::new(); is not an option, because > "new" is a > legal method name, so there could already be existing methods with > that name. > Also, $obj = C::__construct(); would be just wrong. > > But if we can find anything in that direction, I would much prefer it > over a prefix operator. > E.g. $obj = C::+(); is currently not valid syntax, so it would > be a > candidate, even though I don't really like it. > > -- Andreas > If we wanted a suffix, why not just use an empty ::? $frankenstein = Book::($isbn); — Rob