Re: [PHP-DEV] [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