Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110562
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-ID: <9D1E1E08-7DD5-4FD3-B08E-58254CC75FC5@newclarity.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:59:22 -0400
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Remove LSP checks on static methods?
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

Hi internals,

Given that there appears to be some appetite to reduce checks for =
inappropriate signatures[1] I am wondering if anyone has strong opinions =
=E2=80=94 pro or con =E2=80=94 on removing checks for static methods?

My primary use-case where I would like to see checked relaxed is for =
static methods used as factory methods[2].

Per [3] it seems that all but the least upvoted answer argues that LSP =
applies to instances, not static methods.=20

Per [4] it seems that all upvoted answers agree that constructors should =
not be constrained by LSP, and since a factory method is a form of a =
constructor it would seem that if constructors do not require LSP then =
factory methods would not either.

Does anyone see any issues with relaxing these checks for static methods =
that would have them downvote an RFC on the topic?

Thank you in advance.

-Mike


[1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/inheritance_private_methods
[2] =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_method_pattern#:~:text=3DThe%20Facto=
ry%20Method%20design%20pattern%20is%20used%20by%20first%20defining,of%20ob=
jects%20the%20parent%20contains.
[3] =
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/101102/are-static-=
classes-with-static-methods-considered-solid
[4] =
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5490824/should-constructors-comply-wit=
h-the-liskov-substitution-principle=