Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121911
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b9857726-4037-47e4-9407-41b9262af9fc@gmail.com> <74dcffb7-e8c1-45c8-ae41-9fc0f050f484@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <74dcffb7-e8c1-45c8-ae41-9fc0f050f484@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 16:05:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOWwgpny1ce6mX5VE0vp9CLyKhkLiZ8GhG4Cg=8f8Rpw8-Fubw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000071517a060b9c579b"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] Final anonymous classes
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--00000000000071517a060b9c579b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello Nikita,


> > I've just opened voting for the final anonymous classes RFC @
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/final_anonymous_classes.
> >
> > Voting started now, and will run until December 18th 2023, 00:00 GMT.
>
> For the record, I've voted against this proposal because I believe it
> should have gone with option 2, that is to *always* make anonymous classes
> final.
>
> It makes very little sense to me that everyone needs to explicitly mark
> their anonymous classes as final just because there is a class_alias
> loophole that could, in theory, have been used to extend anonymous classes
> in the past. Especially given that there is no evidence of this "feature"
> being used in the wild (or if there is such evidence, it was not presented
> in the proposal).
>

You might have missed my message in the discussion thread,

see https://externals.io/message/121685#121690

There is such evidence (not in the RFC though).

Nicolas

--00000000000071517a060b9c579b--