Idea: Warning about named parameters with a missing constructor?

php.internals

tyson andre

5 years ago
Hi internals, Currently, if there is no constructor, php handles it just like `__construct(...$args) {}`, both for positional and named parameters. Is there any interest in changing that to be a deprecation warning if one or more parameters are passed? (or if 1 or more named parameters are passed) The default behavior of missing constructors would result in somewhat surprising behavior for `new $className(paramName: 123)` if this was used unexpectedly (silently ignoring it) (Desired behavior would be to deprecate/warn/throw) ``` php > class A {} php > var_export(new A(paramName: 123)); A::__set_state(array( )) php > var_export(new stdClass(paramName: 123)); (object) array( ) php > var_export(new stdClass(123)); (object) array( ) ``` (I don't think https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params mentioned this (the current behavior follows from handling of extra positional parameters), and this mistake is probably unlikely in practice, but if it were to occur it would very likely be a bug) PHP already throws ArgumentCountError for passing too many parameters for internal methods so the default method not throwing is a surprise. I haven't yet looked into how much code would break if this were changed. Aside: If a static analyzer such as Phan, Psalm, or PHPStan are set up, those bugs could be detected easily, so the impact seems low, but I wonder if this type of bug could cause confusion (or feel unexpected) for those who are more familiar with other languages than they are with php. Thanks, - Tyson

Nikita Popov

5 years ago
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:01 AM tyson andre <tysonandre775@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi internals, > > Currently, if there is no constructor, php handles it just like > `__construct(...$args) {}`, > both for positional and named parameters. Is there any interest in > changing that to be a deprecation warning if one or more parameters are > passed? > (or if 1 or more named parameters are passed) > > The default behavior of missing constructors would result in somewhat > surprising behavior > for `new $className(paramName: 123)` if this was used unexpectedly > (silently ignoring it) > (Desired behavior would be to deprecate/warn/throw) > > ``` > php > class A {} > php > var_export(new A(paramName: 123)); > A::__set_state(array( > )) > php > var_export(new stdClass(paramName: 123)); > (object) array( > ) > php > var_export(new stdClass(123)); > (object) array( > ) > ``` > > (I don't think https://wiki.php.net/rfc/named_params mentioned this > (the current behavior follows from handling of extra positional > parameters), > and this mistake is probably unlikely in practice, > but if it were to occur it would very likely be a bug) > > PHP already throws ArgumentCountError for passing too many parameters for > internal methods > so the default method not throwing is a surprise. I haven't yet looked > into how much code would break if this were changed. > > Aside: If a static analyzer such as Phan, Psalm, or PHPStan are set up, > those bugs could be detected easily, > so the impact seems low, but I wonder if this type of bug could cause > confusion (or feel unexpected) > for those who are more familiar with other languages than they are with > php. > > Thanks, > - Tyson >
Thanks for bringing this up Tyson! There's two ways to interpret how this works: 1. We're calling an implicit constructor with signature __construct() {}, in which case unknown named args should not be accepted. 2. We're calling an implicit constructor with signature __construct(...$args) {}, in which case unknown named args should be accepted. I believe we should be following 1. here and have put up https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6364 to fix this issue. (This actually happens to match what we were doing prior to PHP 8, I changed the signature of the pass function for unrelated reasons without considering this interaction.) As to the case of normal positional arguments, I agree that we should move towards making that an error as well, but this will need a deprecation phase, as it is long standing behavior. There's also the more general question of passing additional arguments to userland functions, but that one is a lot more controversial. Regards, Nikita