Re: Discussion Short Constructor

On Tue, Jul 15, 2025, at 1:07 PM, Dmitry Derepko wrote: > Hi, > > I've found a discussion about Records > https://externals.io/message/125975 and found a one key point > which I > really like in Kotlin (hello): short constructors. > > Rob said that short constructor will be probably removed: >> 1. Inline constructor isn’t necessary and could be proposed separately. I’ve thought >> recently about this feature > I will probably remove this, to be honest. It was for nesting records > inside classes or other records, but this feature was declined, so > there isn't really a need for it. > > > Whether it's true or not I've played with syntax analyser and created a > sugared polyfill for short constructors: > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19133 > > Many examples of how it works inside the PR, just read them. > > Should I propose the RFC or not? > > This step move us further to "light" structures or "heavy" structures > written "simple": > > class RedBox extends Box(width: 50, height: 200); > > $box = new RedBox(); > > instead of > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function __construct() > { > parent::__construct(width: 50, height: 200); > } > } > > OR > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function getWidth(): int > { > return 50; > } > > public function getHeight(): int > { > return 200; > } > } > > OR even with Single Expression Functions RFC: > > > class RedBox extends Box { > public function getWidth(): int => 50; > > public function getHeight(): int => 200; > } > > > -- > Best regards, > Dmitrii Derepko. > @xepozz I have some concerns that there may be edge cases we've not thought about, but at the moment I am generally in favor. An RFC and implementation would likely help ferret out those edge cases. I agree that this combined with single expression functions would go a long way to making lightweight data structures even easier to create and use. --Larry Garfield