Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110251 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27111 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 17:04:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 May 2020 17:04:12 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979AC1804E2 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS20857 149.210.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from outbound1.mail.transip.nl (outbound1.mail.transip.nl [149.210.149.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from submission11.mail.transip.nl (unknown [10.103.8.162]) by outbound1.mail.transip.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49T9kL17YGzRjQx for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:43:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com [209.85.128.41]) by submission11.mail.transip.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 49T9kH4xvXz2Bcvy for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:43:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id u188so10264864wmu.1 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531a1dnRSNgf3VJEG6f+Ntr9pqNk50Lc/x2VCVN0rxKjFxQqVK+w TomdiTSFK9hPWqyfGeRlSYZZT6RUZJnh77tUm44= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxx1QX6yhfuW6sIoF85wPrTyeFh7EaEPy9ASmvJi0/ofSvBjZMCDbyrMJn8bHt0+DPUfh2exvkGc8L1+aUgiQQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9e52:: with SMTP id h79mr13806454wme.84.1590162198751; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:43:08 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fdee4305a63e7cca" X-Scanned-By: ClueGetter at submission11.mail.transip.nl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=transip-a; d=pmmaga.net; t=1590162201; h=from:subject:to:date: mime-version:content-type; bh=ufoTj4Kr3vYMo1D816D0fcmsue8i6WCQdDJpuyEvsgk=; b=WBlOzk0f8ERk+xSO6RB4ci3hKJvzFUO9RK8vL7cX9Oz6iMspYnFIhAYCRRss2N9FN/nGKo vl/nZUsWR5bm4ZpcEvxPH1OjuUFWbEbCN4filOoXlb8Fzsefgk2uwDHYPrZjR9JtjQJxxT ztQcgtkQO6LKfkQTlDX9gwBOOj6Gas7GcK+EA/phlJdC/AcrJHVUrmj6MlrZpGvzAL3wSo 053OiXGUoRSzjZ/muknWFbtCZP2SAvNOzxWtHIez0VfezX3qzSR6xkILAbHwLVlhcgmkZl uBT3sRgKv+vfwuhiwMK6GwSAKi5LVFHVvsVRmNThVNT3PpU3l5AYTIoSsfx34A== X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@transip.nl Subject: [RFC] [Discussion] Remove inappropriate inheritance signature checks on private methods From: mail@pmmaga.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?=) --000000000000fdee4305a63e7cca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi internals, I want to put up for discussion an RFC ( https://wiki.php.net/rfc/inheritance_private_methods) that proposes to remove some inappropriate signature checks that are still done on private methods. Namely, those checks are: - When a method has the same name as a parent's final private method - When a method has the same name as a parent's static private method and the child's method is non-static, or vice-versa - When a method has the same name as a parent's concrete private method and the child's method is abstract I have 2 open issues on the RFC that I would like to hear some opinions on. - Whether or not to issue a compiler warning whenever "final private function" is used, to alert the user that it will not achieve what that construct is currently used for. The disadvantage of introducing it is the BC break. - Whether or not to make an exception to this rule for magic methods. Given that this is widely to restrict object instantiation and cloning, it could make sense to still allow the use on those cases. However, I think that the similar effect that can be achieved with "final protected function" would cover most of the cases. And if we open up that exception for magic methods, for the sake of clarity maybe we should just keep the "final private" behavior on all methods and just change the static and the abstract behaviors. Some discussion on this subject can be found on the PR = ( https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5401) for this RFC. Regards, Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es --000000000000fdee4305a63e7cca--