Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123617
Message-ID: <b6d67db7-6689-4a1c-ad62-32cc96a01392@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:17:46 +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>
 <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
 <c2472dca-a297-4f14-bf53-b0ab9a67d3c7@rwec.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <c2472dca-a297-4f14-bf53-b0ab9a67d3c7@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 16:58, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> Common arguments against:
>
> - Static properties are a form of global state, and that's something 
> widely advised against

Correct, but a static class does not need to have any state. Indeed, I 
cannot think of an instance where I (personally) have needed state in a 
static class. If this ever becomes a point of contention (though I doubt 
it would), we could even consider prohibiting state in static classes, 
locking it down completely to just methods. A draconian option, but an 
option nonetheless.

> - Static classes without any properties would be the same as putting 
> functions and constants in a namespace, which we can already do

You already provided a counter-point to this; we can't autoload 
functions. Besides, there may be good reason (organizationally) to group 
sets of static functionality together (in a class) rather than having 
them as free-standing functions only so grouped in a file (which does 
not necessarily imply the same degree of cohesion).

>> 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.
>
> This line of thinking always makes me uneasy. It lends undue weight to 
> *who* made decisions, and not enough to *why*.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone whom was participating nine years ago (I 
have nothing but respect for those whom came before), I really don't 
care _who_ fielded opinions or decisions, my point was simple and 
singular: that even if an opinion was valid back then, if nobody were to 
uphold it today, it wouldn't carry any weight now. I think enough time 
has passed that gauging the sentiment of today is valid and worthwhile, 
especially if it has shifted (and we cannot know without asking).

Cheers,
Bilge