Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114497
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a8cca9f4-10c2-47ee-a6f9-c27e247d4734@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABdc3WpFk9qf10D=fEscB6LynmdN2_yFHW1b_Mz1m837=YOhTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <DM6PR07MB6618AA302ABC6DC7A37B609BF92D9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABdc3WpFk9qf10D=fEscB6LynmdN2_yFHW1b_Mz1m837=YOhTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 09:29:10 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]: Allow static properties in enums
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Mon, May 17, 2021, at 9:16 AM, Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski wrote:
> pon., 17 maj 2021, 16:02 u=C5=BCytkownik tyson andre <tysonandre775@ho=
tmail.com>
> napisa=C5=82:
>=20
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > I've created a new RFC
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/enum_allow_static_properties
> >
> > Although enums are immutable objects, it is often useful to have fun=
ctions
> > or methods that operate on enum instances.
> > In many cases, it would make sense to declare that functionality as =
static
> > methods on the enum itself.
> > In cases where static methods require shared state, it would be usef=
ul to
> > allow storing those shared state in static properties.
> > To ensure immutability of enum instances, it's only necessary to for=
bid
> > instance properties, but all properties were forbidden in the initia=
l
> > functionality included with the enums RFC.
> >
> > This RFC proposes allowing static properties in enums, while continu=
ing to
> > forbid instance properties.
> >
>=20
> Would you be able to provide more real life example?
> The example in RFC could easily encapsulate current Environment readin=
g in
> for eg. EnvironmentConfiguration class with static property and method=
 and
> TBH possibly that would be my preference to solve this.

I would agree.  Static properties are ugly to begin with.  They're globa=
ls with extra syntax.  I have no desire to see them on enums.

Also a clarification, since it wasn't entirely clear in Tyson's original=
 email: Static methods on Enums *are already supported*.  They were incl=
uded in the original Enum RFC.  The change proposed here is just about s=
tatic properties.

--Larry Garfield