Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121914 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9138 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2023 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2023 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267D8180003 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2023 08:35:02 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DMARC_MISSING, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from xdebug.org (xdebug.org [82.113.146.227]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2023 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [148.252.133.25]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C42A10C4AE; Sun, 3 Dec 2023 16:34:50 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:34:47 +0000 To: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <74dcffb7-e8c1-45c8-ae41-9fc0f050f484@app.fastmail.com> References: <74dcffb7-e8c1-45c8-ae41-9fc0f050f484@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <92012D5D-B917-46E1-A1A0-6F92404347B0@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] Final anonymous classes From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On 3 December 2023 14:49:12 GMT, Nikita Popov wr= ote: >On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, at 11:40, Daniil Gentili wrote: >> Hi all, >>=20 >> I've just opened voting for the final anonymous classes RFC @=20 >> https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/final_anonymous_classes=2E >>=20 >> Voting started now, and will run until December 18th 2023, 00:00 GMT=2E > >For the record, I've voted against this proposal because I believe it sho= uld have gone with option 2, that is to *always* make anonymous classes fin= al=2E > >It makes very little sense to me that everyone needs to explicitly mark t= heir anonymous classes as final just because there is a class_alias loophol= e that could, in theory, have been used to extend anonymous classes in the = past=2E 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)=2E > >Regards, >Nikita I agree with this, and would also say that this RFC is the most thin one I= 've seen=2E There is no reasoning, or examples, or pretty much anything else in it=2E= =20 cheers Derick