Re: RFC: Records

> On 17. Nov 2024, at 06:14, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: > > Hello internals, > > I'm ready as I'm going to be to introduce to you: "Records" > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records! > > Records allow for a lightweight syntax for defining value objects. These are superior to > read-only classes due to having value semantics and far less boilerplate, for most things developers > use read-only classes for. They are almost as simple to use as arrays (and provide much of the same > semantics), but typed. > > As an example, if you wanted to define a simple User record: > > record User(string $emailAddress, int $databaseId); > > Then using it is as simple as calling it like a function, with the & symbol: > > $rob = &User("rob@bottled.codes > <mailto:rob@bottled.codes>", 1); > > Since it has value semantics, we can get another instance, and it is strongly equal to another > of the same parameters: > > $otherRob = &User("rob@bottled.codes > <mailto:rob@bottled.codes>", 1); > assert($otherRob === $rob); // true > > Records may also have methods (even hooks), use traits, and implement interfaces: > > record Vector3(float $x, float $y, $z) implements Vector { > use Vector; > public float magnitude { > get => return sqrt($this->x ** 2 + $this->y ** 2 + $this->z ** 2) > } > } > > Further, an automatic (but overridable) "with" method is generated for every record. > This allows you to get a new record similar to a given one, very easily: > > record Planet(string $name); > > $earth = &Planet("earth"); > $mars = $earth->with(name: "mars"); > > The depth of records was an immense exploration of the PHP engine, language design, and is > hopefully quite powerful for the needs of everyday PHP and niche libraries. I took care in every > aspect and tried to cover every possible case in the RFC, but I still probably missed some things. I > plan on having a full implementation done by the end of the year and open to a vote by the end of > January, but I'd like to open the discussion up here first. Love it or hate it, I'd like > to hear your thoughts. > > — Rob Hey Rob, We just discussed your RFCs here. We noticed this in the RFC: ```php $point1 = &Point(3, 4); $point2 = $point1; // No data duplication, $point2 references the same data as $point1 $point3 = Point(3, 4); // No data duplication, it is pointing to the same memory as $point1 ``` Is the & on the 3rd line Point omitted intentionally or was that just missed? If not missed, how is that not ambiguous? Could you please clarify? Cheers, Nick