Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120651
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAKU0umNOJ+6x44WRuzc2e9_5sDehAq5UB_aFn+cT4wxTny9wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+p1FaYU58Z7UZuDNEHnOWefZyu6uoP+4iZ7rgOhQHaA+f+_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0ukt+rHchFhvcEUJcY8q9UNRjoF9BxQTiWUdOanffg012Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+p1Fabw7We9XQNiSMKo34sZigyjnx6WF1yKXR3Xb66y_o4VYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9ee48c8-c1cb-8278-bdc1-22b19fbf15f3@gmail.com> <CA+p1FaZfjuh472ZmUajU46BENet-mPZQM9mBdSb3uJCN0-qRiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NpPcciDmp5JNjeAzFYncEc9+7U3m4wabU85CHD2xRHFjw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+p1FabbzRLLBet_-3LzV5K6fA4Endbwmki7KjiWjQcue5wzgQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+p1FabbzRLLBet_-3LzV5K6fA4Endbwmki7KjiWjQcue5wzgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 21:46:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NpkASAgwRoKsz7jLAQBY614fg7W4fP_jRJ8HBMBZJBn0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Gebler <davidgebler@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Interface Default Methods
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 6:29=E2=80=AFAM David Gebler <davidgebler@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, 04:10 Levi Morrison, <levim@php.net> wrote:
>
> > > I like the idea of this RFC - in fact it's one which has been near to=
p of
> > > my wishlist for PHP language features for a long time - but I think t=
his
> > is
> > > an issue with the proposed implementation which at the very least
> > warrants
> > > highlighting and discussion.
> >
> > I understand your concern but personally believe it's overblown. This
> > problem already exists with abstract classes, but doesn't seem to be
> > that much of an issue in practice. I hope static analysis can fill the
> > gap here, but don't think these checks are necessary to ship this
> > feature.
> >
>
>
> Yeah I suppose I'm just saying "Interface default methods" can be
> interpreted a few different ways and there's key differences between
> Java-style, versus syntax sugar for mixing an interface and a trait in to
> one unit, versus a user can effectively extend multiple abstract classes
> but with interface keyword.

I will update the RFC soon. In my head it was so obvious that it would
be similar to regular inheritance and less like traits, to the extent
I didn't even realize I'd need to specify it. This is why discussion
periods can be valuable; the RFC doesn't always say what's in the RFC
author's head :)