Re: [PHP-DEV] [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