Re: [RFC] Primary Constructors

Hey Rowan, On 29.06.26 16:00, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:

On 29/06/2026 07:31, Nick Sdot wrote:

If "use conventional constructors, if you need readonly classes" stands, then the same can be argued for everything else in the RFC.

For the record, my view is completely the opposite: if the new syntax allows everything a normal constructor does, just in a slightly different position, it will lead to endless style discussions of which to use.

That's a fair opinion, and not unexpected. Personally, I oppose introducing more inconsistencies to PHP. Looks like that we need to have these discussions then?

In fact, I don't think even property hooks belong in a primary constructor; they're ugly enough in a constructor promoted property.

It's a feature that was accepted to PHP and exists already. So it doesn't really matter whether we (I agree -- shouldn't be used for anything more than eg a neat callback) find it ugly and we have to deal with its existence. You are basically making a point for allowing primary constructor bodies. Having them allows to have a readonly classes with primary constructors, and assign properties in their body. Neat.

I think it's perfectly fine to have short-hands that only cover specific use cases, and longer forms that let you express more complex use cases. It's one of the reasons I voted against the recent RFC to allow an extra reassignment of properties in the constructor [https://wiki.php.net/rfc/promoted_readonly_constructor_reassign].

For the record, my view is completely the opposite: without allowing primary constructor bodies the added value of adding the new syntax is nearly non-existent. Quoting from your message in the first thread to this:

I don't think we should add extra syntax to the language just to change people's habits. If you want a constructor body as the first thing in the class, you can do that right now.

...because the exact argument can be made from either point of view. To quote you again: "all or nothing"; bodies should be allowed. -- Cheers Nick