Re: [VOTE] Automatic Property Initialization

Hi Johannes, Johannes wrote: > from a quick look at it there seems to be a design flaw > around inheritance with code like this: That example is equivalent to calling the parent constuctor like this: class Base { public $p; function __construct($this->p = 42); } Class E extends Base { function __construct($value) { $this->p = $value; parent::__construct(); } } So yes - you need will still need to pass parameters to a parent constructor that requires them, but that is the same as the current situation. Johannes wrote: > also > class C { public function m($foo->prop){}} > becomes valid syntax Nope, it's constructors only. From the patch, the following errors can be triggered: "Automatic property initialization can only be used inside a class" "Automatic property initialization can only be used in a constructor" "Automatic property initialization can not be used in an abstract method" If you try to use the syntax outside of a constructor function. cheers Dan On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@schlueters.de> wrote: > Hi Pascal, > > On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 23:41 +0100, Pascal Chevrel wrote: >> Out of curiosity I read both the Voting and Release Process RFCs and >> couldn't find any mention of a rule stating that all votes had to be >> approved before the first alpha, if I overlooked it, please correct me. >> Also, If you look at the wikipedia definition of an alpha in, I believe >> that it is still time to add features: > > No, that rule wasn't written down, but the release process came to live > out of consequence of us pushing things in quite late in the game and I > fear we run exactly in the same direction, again. > >> Also, isn't it to the Release Manager role to make such decisions? > [...] >> The document linked is: >> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php56#timetable > [...] >> The RFC was created before the first alpha, the voting phase is now and >> if the result of the vote is a yes, then it has until mid-March to be >> included. At least that's how I read it. > > Yes, there is no strict rule, but still we're not talking about a small > change here but a language change (a small language change, but still) > and I merely wish that this fact is considered by voters. Ideally the > proposer would have added options for 5.6 and the following version. > > > (Actually I hadn't reviewed the proposal before and from a quick look at > it there seems to be a design flaw around inheritance with code like > this: > class Base { public $p; function __construct($this->p = 42); } > Class E extends Base { function __construct($this->p = 23) { parent::__construct(); } > new E; > leading to probably unexpected results ... also > class C { public function m($foo->prop){}} > becomes valid syntax and leads to (fatal) runtime errors, this might > even be true for non-class function declarations ... but I haven't > really checked, I assume voters will) > > johannes > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >