Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123615
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-515-g87b2bad5a-fm-20240604.001-g87b2bad5
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fb9c81f0-6c18-4ba0-b564-d95dad324898@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
References: <0cf69a14-f1b5-4077-9d91-d7b579485eec@scriptfusion.com>
 <936e1aa3-48cc-4552-9f68-676ebcdeb596@rwec.co.uk>
 <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:52:36 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=72ef5869ea504674804165fc4ca2a15b
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--72ef5869ea504674804165fc4ca2a15b
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, at 16:40, Bilge wrote:
> 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=20
> >> level. That is, the following would be valid: `static class Foo {}`=
.=20
> >
> >
> > This has been proposed before, and was rejected at vote. It was near=
ly=20
> > 10 years ago, so opinions may have changed, but it would be worth=20
> > reading through the prior discussion to anticipate or counter the=20
> > 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 an=
d=20
> > 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=20
> > ago, which I'd entirely forgotten: https://externals.io/message/1217=
17
> >
> > Slightly tangential, but some of the same discussion also came up on=20
> > these rather lengthy threads about "static class constructors":=20
> > https://externals.io/message/84602 and https://externals.io/message/=
85779
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> Hi Rowan,
>=20
> That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the=20
> idea was rejected, other than people didn't like "abstract final" as t=
he=20
> syntax (thank God). As for why "static" was rejected, as stated, I don=
't=20
> get a good sense of it at all, but rather than fall back on the opinio=
ns=20
> of many who are mostly absent among those polled nine years ago, I'd=20
> rather get a sense of the current sentiment of those present today.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Bilge
>=20

I can see these mostly being used for factories, laravel facades, or uti=
lity functions. I think they would probably be useful in some codebases.

I would argue that in the codebases I work in, these types of constructs=
 represent a code smell and it would be a lot easier to catch via static=
 analysis and prevent. The current trick of using traits is much harder =
to catch except during code review.

So, I say =E2=80=9Cyes please.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=94 Rob
--72ef5869ea504674804165fc4ca2a15b
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, at 16:40, Bilge wrote:<br></div><bl=
ockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>On 15/06/2024 14:53, Ro=
wan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:<br></div><div>&gt; On 15/06/2024 12:16, Bilge=
 wrote:<br></div><div>&gt;&gt;<br></div><div>&gt;&gt; I want to introduc=
e the `static` keyword at the class declaration&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt;=
&gt; level. That is, the following would be valid: `static class Foo {}`=
.&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt; This ha=
s been proposed before, and was rejected at vote. It was nearly&nbsp;<br=
></div><div>&gt; 10 years ago, so opinions may have changed, but it woul=
d be worth&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; reading through the prior discussion=
 to anticipate or counter the&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; objections raised=
, and avoid re-treading the same ground.<br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><di=
v>&gt; - RFC:&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_cl=
ass">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class</a><br></div><div>&gt=
; - Pre-vote discussion threads:&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://externals.io/me=
ssage/79211">https://externals.io/message/79211</a> and&nbsp;<br></div><=
div>&gt;&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://externals.io/message/79338">https://ext=
ernals.io/message/79338</a><br></div><div>&gt; - Final vote thread:&nbsp=
;<a href=3D"https://externals.io/message/79601">https://externals.io/mes=
sage/79601</a><br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt; Searching my list a=
rchive, I find that it came up again a few months&nbsp;<br></div><div>&g=
t; ago, which I'd entirely forgotten:&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://externals.=
io/message/121717">https://externals.io/message/121717</a><br></div><div=
>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt; Slightly tangential, but some of the same discu=
ssion also came up on&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; these rather lengthy thre=
ads about "static class constructors":&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;<a =
href=3D"https://externals.io/message/84602">https://externals.io/message=
/84602</a> and&nbsp;<a href=3D"https://externals.io/message/85779">https=
://externals.io/message/85779</a><br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>&gt;<=
br></div><div>&gt; Regards,<br></div><div>&gt;<br></div><div>Hi Rowan,<b=
r></div><div><br></div><div>That's all quite interesting, but I didn't g=
et a good sense of why the&nbsp;<br></div><div>idea was rejected, other =
than people didn't like "abstract final" as the&nbsp;<br></div><div>synt=
ax (thank God). As for why "static" was rejected, as stated, I don't&nbs=
p;<br></div><div>get a good sense of it at all, but rather than fall bac=
k on the opinions&nbsp;<br></div><div>of many who are mostly absent amon=
g those polled nine years ago, I'd&nbsp;<br></div><div>rather get a sens=
e of the current sentiment of those present today.<br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Bilge<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div>I can see these mostly being used for factories, la=
ravel facades, or utility functions. I think they would probably be usef=
ul in some codebases.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would argue that in=
 the codebases I work in, these types of constructs represent a code sme=
ll and it would be a lot easier to catch via static analysis and prevent=
. The current trick of using traits is much harder to catch except durin=
g code review.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So, I say =E2=80=9Cyes pleas=
e.=E2=80=9D</div><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<b=
r></div></body></html>
--72ef5869ea504674804165fc4ca2a15b--