Re: [RFC] Default constructors

On 19 November 2014 01:05, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > I'm happy to accept that this is a low-priority, hard-to-fix, bug. I > > just don't see that it can be justified as a feature. > > We can argue semantics of the word "bug" all day long, but the fact is > the functionality as it is is there by an explicit decision - it was > chosen to be this way and no other way, for the reasons I have > described, it was no omission and no unintended side-effect of > something, it was meant to work this way. If you want to call it "hard > to fix bug" knowing this, you're welcome to. > Is there a .phpt test-case or discussion backing this? I find this quite hard to believe, especially since following examples are broken in php and working "as expected" (by me) in hhvm: http://3v4l.org/4nhoq Yes, that's a bug :-) Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/