Re: [RFC] Primary Constructors

Hi, Nick, On Mon, Jun 29, 2026, at 10:47, Nick Sdot wrote: > 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? There's no inconsistency here. This syntax doesn't prevent you from using readonly classes. It only prevents you from initialization/validation in a body because there are no bodies. If you need a body, use a constructor -- that's what they're for. The RFC makes it plain that bodies are rejected and why. If you can provide a concrete reason why they should be allowed with a completely new syntax, that would be a good follow-up RFC; or even a competing one. If you disagree with the reasoning, I'd love to hear it. — Rob