Re: Optional constructor body

On Thursday, 18 July 2024 at 19:23, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > On 7/18/24 16:03, Lily Bergonzat wrote: > > > I feel like the more substantial one would be more likely to break > > stuff, compared to the minor one, and so I don't see why the minor one > > would be refused? > > > There is no such thing as a minor syntax change. Any changes to the > syntax has consequences for all the downstream tools trying to > understand PHP. This includes IDEs, static analyzers, code formatting > and linting tools, which would all need to be updated to understand the > new syntax. Furthermore the syntax would need to be documented and > translated within the PHP documentation. > > That's quite a bit of effort to save a single character per class > definition. In practice it will be even fewer, because not every class > will have an empty constructor. Also whenever a class gets a non-trivial > constructor in the future, the diff would not just consist of inserting > the new code into the body, but also replacing the semicolon by braces, > making the diff less readable. > > I do not think this is worth it. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus I am also of the same opinion. The benefit of this is marginal. And if this requires a semicolon, the benefit is even lower by effectively just typing one less character. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard