Re: RFC: Records

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, at 13:02, Nick wrote: > >> 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", 1); >> >> Since it has value semantics, we can get another instance, and it is strongly equal to >> another of the same parameters: >> >> $otherRob = &User("rob@bottled.codes", 1); >> assert($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 The & was originally a way to signal to the engine that this was going to be a Record (for autoloading) but I think I realized it is actually valid PHP code? I don't remember why I removed it specifically. I like the Point::(3, 4) syntax, when I think about it. — Rob