Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123614
Message-ID: <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 15:40:04 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <0cf69a14-f1b5-4077-9d91-d7b579485eec@scriptfusion.com>
 <936e1aa3-48cc-4552-9f68-676ebcdeb596@rwec.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <936e1aa3-48cc-4552-9f68-676ebcdeb596@rwec.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

On 15/06/2024 14:53, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> On 15/06/2024 12:16, Bilge wrote:
>>
>> I want to introduce the `static` keyword at the class declaration 
>> level. That is, the following would be valid: `static class Foo {}`. 
>
>
> This has been proposed before, and was rejected at vote. It was nearly 
> 10 years ago, so opinions may have changed, but it would be worth 
> reading through the prior discussion to anticipate or counter the 
> objections raised, and avoid re-treading the same ground.
>
> - RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class
> - Pre-vote discussion threads: https://externals.io/message/79211 and 
> https://externals.io/message/79338
> - Final vote thread: https://externals.io/message/79601
>
> Searching my list archive, I find that it came up again a few months 
> ago, which I'd entirely forgotten: https://externals.io/message/121717
>
> Slightly tangential, but some of the same discussion also came up on 
> these rather lengthy threads about "static class constructors": 
> https://externals.io/message/84602 and https://externals.io/message/85779
>
>
> Regards,
>
Hi Rowan,

That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the 
idea was rejected, other than people didn't like "abstract final" as the 
syntax (thank God). As for why "static" was rejected, as stated, I don't 
get a good sense of it at all, but rather than fall back on the opinions 
of many who are mostly absent among those polled nine years ago, I'd 
rather get a sense of the current sentiment of those present today.

Cheers,
Bilge