Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118227
Message-ID: <9C5F6ABF-EA43-4D1B-9ACF-7E3F971BC53E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_C746780A-B484-4E82-BDEF-B15EC12B31F8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 13:42:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAMrTa2E27EHQvtB=r0NvNRHH8-bjmexaQH3rsWAfKgO3ObiQtg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: shinji igarashi <sji@sj-i.dev>,
 internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Jordan LeDoux <jordan.ledoux@gmail.com>
References: <CAH19jWhvuLBT3kZ-u1SPEgwEec=JfALuaiy+Lma9F8WAbqANWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMrTa2E27EHQvtB=r0NvNRHH8-bjmexaQH3rsWAfKgO3ObiQtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Constants in traits
From: mike@newclarity.net (MKS Archive)

--Apple-Mail=_C746780A-B484-4E82-BDEF-B15EC12B31F8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

> On Jul 8, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jordan LeDoux <jordan.ledoux@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:39 PM shinji igarashi <sji@sj-i.dev =
<mailto:sji@sj-i.dev>> wrote:
>=20
>> Hello internals,
>>=20
>> I've started the vote for the Constants in Traits RFC:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constants_in_traits
>>=20
>> The vote will end on 19. July 2022.
>>=20
>> Thanks!
>>=20
>> --
>> Shinji Igarashi
>>=20
>>=20
> I don't have a vote, but I wanted to address this concern about the
> "usefulness" of traits, since the *voting* stage is rather the wrong =
place
> to bring up the idea that the existence of the feature itself is a
> negative.
>=20
> In my view, the "correct" way to use traits is for them to be entirely
> self-contained. That is, if you can put the trait in *any* class, and =
have
> that trait work as intended *even if* it makes no semantic sense to do =
so,
> then it's a good trait. This is currently somewhat difficult to do in
> certain situations. Some of the things the trait may need must live =
outside
> the trait, such as constants. This fact promotes further problematic =
usage
> of the feature.
>=20
> Requiring something like class constants to be external to the trait
> *forces* the kind of trait designs that they have complained about. =
Voting
> "no" because you want to see the feature removed instead is
> counter-productive to the process of improving the language itself if =
the
> RFC in question helps correct an oversight of the original feature =
design
> as stated by the original implementer of this feature and helps to =
promote
> more non-problematic usage of the feature.

+1=20

>=20
> I don't know how else to view that position except for wanting to keep
> design flaws in a feature so that you have additional arguments in the
> future to remove it.
>=20

That seems to be a very plausible analysis...


-Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_C746780A-B484-4E82-BDEF-B15EC12B31F8--