Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110565
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9D1E1E08-7DD5-4FD3-B08E-58254CC75FC5@newclarity.net> <CAF+90c8zb1kw9PoSwZ1p_QQpaXcCX4W0-iAvXrY0-5PwEbtgng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8zb1kw9PoSwZ1p_QQpaXcCX4W0-iAvXrY0-5PwEbtgng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:09:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CABdc3Woc4Z3HJWDX=Pc-BovFQghLqf1Qd5m+j7+k1WxFuRpOBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fec77405a82f0ead"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Remove LSP checks on static methods?
From: michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?=)

--000000000000fec77405a82f0ead
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

wt., 16 cze 2020 o 09:50 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> napisa=C5=82(a=
):

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:59 AM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote=
:
>
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > Given that there appears to be some appetite to reduce checks for
> > inappropriate signatures[1] I am wondering if anyone has strong opinion=
s
> =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.
> >
> > Per [4] it seems that all upvoted answers agree that constructors shoul=
d
> > 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 method=
s
> > that would have them downvote an RFC on the topic?
> >
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> The problem here is that static methods signatures are subject to LSP if
> they are used in conjunction with late static binding (LSB):
>
> class A {
>     public static function test() {
>         static::method();
>         // May call A::method(), B::method() or any child.
>         // Signature must match for this to be sensible!
>     }
> }
> class B extends A {
> }
>
> I do agree that the current situation is sub-optimal, because certainly n=
ot
> all static methods actually are used with LSB. But we do not presently
> distinguish these cases.
>
> If that problem can be addressed in some way, then I agree that (non-LSB)
> static methods should be exempt from LSP, just like constructors are.
>

In that case maybe a core annotation like "Override" to relax checks ??
That way it'd say explicitly that it was intentional override.

Cheers,
Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski

--000000000000fec77405a82f0ead--