rfc:new_in_initializers

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
rfc:new_in_initializers [2021/03/04 11:49]
nikic Be more explicit about evaluation order
rfc:new_in_initializers [2021/07/14 07:19] (current)
nikic
Line 2: Line 2:
   * Date: 2021-03-02   * Date: 2021-03-02
   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
-  * Status: Under Discussion+  * Status: Implemented
   * Proposed Version: PHP 8.1   * Proposed Version: PHP 8.1
-  * Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6746+  * Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7153
  
 ===== Introduction ===== ===== Introduction =====
  
-This RFC proposes to allow use of ''new'' expressions inside initializer expressions, including for property and parameter default values.+This RFC proposes to allow use of ''new'' expressions inside parameter default values, attribute arguments, static variable initializers and global constant initializers.
  
 Currently, code such as the following is not permitted: Currently, code such as the following is not permitted:
Line 36: Line 36:
 This makes the actual default value less obvious (from an API contract perspective), and requires the use of a nullable argument. This makes the actual default value less obvious (from an API contract perspective), and requires the use of a nullable argument.
  
-This RFC proposes to relax this restriction and allow the use of ''new'' inside all initializer expressions.+This RFC proposes to relax this restriction and allow the use of ''new'' inside certain initializer expressions.
  
 ===== Proposal ===== ===== Proposal =====
  
-''new'' expressions are allowed as part of initializer expressions. It is possible to pass arguments to the constructor, including the use of named arguments:+''new'' expressions are allowed as part of certain initializer expressions. It is possible to pass arguments to the constructor, including the use of named arguments:
  
 <PHP> <PHP>
Line 52: Line 52:
 </PHP> </PHP>
  
-The use of a dynamic or non-string class name is not allowed. The use of argument unpacking is not allowed. The use of unsupported expressions as arguments is not allowed. +The use of a dynamic or non-string class name or an anonymous class is not allowed. The use of argument unpacking is not allowed. The use of unsupported expressions as arguments is not allowed. 
  
 <PHP> <PHP>
 // All not allowed (compile-time error): // All not allowed (compile-time error):
 function test( function test(
-    $foo = new (CLASS_NAME_CONSTANT)(), // dynamic class name +    $= new (CLASS_NAME_CONSTANT)(), // dynamic class name 
-    $bar = new A(...[]), // argument unpacking +    $b = new class {}, // anonymous class 
-    $baz = new B($abc), // unsupported constant expression+    $c = new A(...[]), // argument unpacking 
 +    $= new B($abc), // unsupported constant expression
 ) {} ) {}
 </PHP> </PHP>
  
-Affected positions are static variable intializers, constant and class constant initializers, static and non-static property intializers, parameter default values, as well as attribute arguments:+New expressions are allowed in parameter default values, attribute arguments, static variable initializers and global class constant initializers. Parameter default values also include defaults for promoted properties:
  
 <PHP> <PHP>
Line 69: Line 70:
  
 const C = new Foo; const C = new Foo;
 +
 +function test($param = new Foo) {}
  
 #[AnAttribute(new Foo)] #[AnAttribute(new Foo)]
 class Test { class Test {
-    const C = new Foo; +    public function __construct( 
-    public static $prop = new Foo; +        public $prop = new Foo, 
-    public $prop = new Foo;+    ) {}
 } }
- 
-function test($param = new Foo) {} 
 </PHP> </PHP>
 +
 +==== Unsupported positions ====
 +
 +New expressions continue to not be supported in (static and non-static) property initializers and class constant initializers. The reasons for this are twofold:
 +
 +For non-static property initializers, the initializer expression needs to be evaluated on each object creation. There are currently two places where this could happen: As part of object creation, and as part of the constructor call. Doing this as part of object creation can create issues for unserialization and any other process that is based on ''newInstanceWithoutConstructor()'' and does not want to implicitly execute potential side-effects.
 +
 +Performing the initialization by injecting code in the constructor avoids the issue, but requires that constructor to actually be called. In particular, this would necessitate generating constructors for classes that do not explicitly declare them, and the disciplined invocation of such constructors from potential child constructors. The third option would be to introduce an additional initialization phase between creation and construction.
 +
 +For static property initializers and class constant initializers a different evaluation order issue arises. Currently, these initializers are evaluated lazily the first time a class is used in a certain way (e.g. instantiated). Once initializers can contain potentially side-effecting expressions, it would be preferable to have a more well-defined evaluation order. However, the straightforward approach of evaluating initilizers when the class is declared would break certain existing code patterns. In particular, referencing a class that is declared later in the same file would no longer work.
 +
 +As such support in these contexts is delayed until such a time as a consensus on the preferred behavior can be reached.
  
 ==== Order of evaluation ==== ==== Order of evaluation ====
  
-Initializer expressions could always contain side-effects through autoloaders or error handlers. However, support for ''new'' and the accompanying construct calls make side-effect a more first-class citizen in initializer expressions, so it is worthwhile to specify when and in what order they are evaluated. This depends on the type of initializer:+Initializer expressions could always contain side-effects through autoloaders or error handlers. However, support for ''new'' and the accompanying constructor calls make side-effect a more first-class citizen in initializer expressions, so it is worthwhile to specify when and in what order they are evaluated. For the contexts where ''new'' is supported under this proposal:
  
   * Static variable initializers are evaluated when control flow reaches the static variable declaration.   * Static variable initializers are evaluated when control flow reaches the static variable declaration.
Line 88: Line 101:
   * Attribute arguments are evaluated from left to right on every call of ''ReflectionAttribute::getArguments()'' or ''ReflectionAttribute::newInstance()''.   * Attribute arguments are evaluated from left to right on every call of ''ReflectionAttribute::getArguments()'' or ''ReflectionAttribute::newInstance()''.
   * Parameter default values are evaluated from left to right on every call to the function where the parameter is not explicitly passed.   * Parameter default values are evaluated from left to right on every call to the function where the parameter is not explicitly passed.
-  * Property default values are evaluated in order of declaration (with parent properties before properties declared in the class) when the object is instantiated. This happens before the constructor is invoked. If an exception is thrown during evaluation, the object destructor will not be invoked. 
-  * The time of evaluation for static properties and class constants is unspecified. Currently, all static property and class constant initializers are evaluated on certain first uses of the class. (TBD) 
  
-==== Recursion protection ====+Additionally, initializers can be accessed through Reflection, in which case the following evaluation semantics apply:
  
-If the evaluation of an object property default value results in recursion, an ''Error'' exception is thrown:+  * ''ReflectionFunctionAbstract::getStaticVariables()'': Returns the current value of the static variables and also forces evaluation of any initializers that haven't been reached yet. 
 +  * ''ReflectionParameter::getDefaultValue()'': Evaluates the default value (on each call). 
 +  * ''ReflectionParameter::isDefaultValueConstant()'' and ''ReflectionParameter::getDefaultValueConstantName()'': Do not evaluate the default value. 
 +  * ''ReflectionAttribute::getArguments()'' and ''ReflectionAttribute::newInstance()'': Evaluate attribute arguments on each call.
  
-<PHP> +==== Nested attributes ====
-class Test { +
-    public $test new Test; +
-}+
  
-new Test; +It is worth mentioning explicitly that this RFC effectively adds support for nested attributes, which were omitted from the original attributes RFC. For example, attributes of the following form are now possible: 
-// Error: Trying to recursively instantiate Test while evaluating default value for Test::$test+ 
 +<PHP> 
 +#[Assert\All(new Assert\NotNull, new Assert\Length(max6))]
 </PHP> </PHP>
  
 ===== Backward Incompatible Changes ===== ===== Backward Incompatible Changes =====
  
-None.+This RFC does not introduce any backwards-incompatible changes, and also should not break any major assumptions. The only case where something genuinely new is possible are nested attributes.
  
 ===== Future Scope ===== ===== Future Scope =====
  
-This RFC is narrow in that it only adds support for ''new'' expressionsHowever, it also lays the technical groundwork for supporting other expressions like calls.+This RFC omits support for ''new'' in property and class constant initializersThese could be supported in the future, once we have figured out the evaluation order issues. 
 + 
 +With the precedent set by ''new'', it would probably also make sense to allow other call expressions. For example, this would allow use of static factor methods.
  
 ===== Vote  ===== ===== Vote  =====
  
-Yes/No.+Voting opened on 2021-06-30 and closes on 2021-07-14. 
 + 
 +<doodle title="Support new in initializers as proposed?" auth="nikic" voteType="single" closed="true"> 
 +   Yes 
 +   No 
 +</doodle>
  
rfc/new_in_initializers.1614858583.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/03/04 11:49 by nikic