Thanks for sharing previous discussions, I will definitely take a look at
those before writing up the RFC.
> If you do with to go with an RFC, I'd like to see if your proposal
addresses whether this syntax should implicitly call
`parent::__construct()`, and if a semi colon is expected or not
(`public function __construct(public int $foo);` vs `public function
__construct(public int $foo)`).
Thank you, these are very valuable points to address in the RFC.
I can definitely feel that there will be some mixed opinions about
semicolon vs no semi colon.
Best regards
Oliver Nybroe (he/him)
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 11:49, Lily Bergonzat <lilybergonzat+...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't view this proposition as a breaking change. The way I
> understand it, writing an empty body for a constructor would
> still work, but we would also get the option to just omit the
> body altogether.
>
> I think it would be a very sensible update. I also think it should
> require a semicolon, just so we have the same kind of syntax
> as interfaces.
>
> I would love to see such a change!
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:46 AM Ayesh Karunaratne <ayesh@php.watch>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello internals.
> > >
> > > I am looking into making the constructor body optional in classes,
> essentially allowing you to write
> > >
> > > ```
> > > class User {
> > > public function __construct(
> > > private string $name,
> > > )
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Currently to make this code valid, it would have to be written the
> following way
> > >
> > > ```
> > > class User {
> > > public function __construct(
> > > public string $name,
> > > ) {}
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > With the introduction or constructor property promotion in 8.0, we
> often see classes where the constructor has an empty body, and my guess
> would be that this will only increase with the introduction of property
> access hooks in 8.4 which is allowed to be defined in the constructor also.
> > >
> > > This change would only be a cosmetic change and simplify the userland
> code by removing two redundant characters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This would be my first RFC and I am willing to try and implement it
> myself.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Oliver Nybroe (he/him)
> >
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > Some links to previous discussions when this was brought up in the
> > mailing list before:
> >
> > - https://externals.io/message/114324
> > - https://externals.io/message/111590
> >
> > I followed those discussions closely back then, and I suppose the
> > general sentiment (to which I also agree) was that this is more of a
> > code style consideration rather than a technical one. Although it's a
> > cosmetic change, the fact that it will cause BC issues on older PHP
> > versions was a significant concern; now more so after we had
> > Constructor Properties for 4 years.
> >
> > I think you can gather more pre-RFC opinions from this mailing thread,
> > especially now that this is brought up after a while since Constructor
> > Properties were introduced.
> >
> > If you do with to go with an RFC, I'd like to see if your proposal
> > addresses whether this syntax should implicitly call
> > `parent::__construct()`, and if a semi colon is expected or not
> > (`public function __construct(public int $foo);` vs `public function
> > __construct(public int $foo)`).
> >
> > Ayesh.
>
