Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123618
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Message-ID: <4a298266-d29c-44e8-abea-849fd3e23721@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:08:33 +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>
 <b6d67db7-6689-4a1c-ad62-32cc96a01392@scriptfusion.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <b6d67db7-6689-4a1c-ad62-32cc96a01392@scriptfusion.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 15/06/2024 17:17, Bilge wrote:

> You already provided a counter-point to this; we can't autoload functions.


Just to reiterate, please do not attribute any of the arguments or 
counter-arguments to me. They were my attempt, from memory, to summarise 
previous discussions.


> 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). 


I don't think "free-standing functions ... grouped in a file" is a valid 
description of namespaced functions. In case there is some 
misunderstanding, the point is that "Foo::bar()" is essentially 
equivalent to "Foo\bar()"



> even if an opinion was valid back then, if nobody were to uphold it 
> today, it wouldn't carry any weight now


I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.

If somebody makes a valid point, it doesn't automatically become invalid 
because time has passed, or because nobody happens to repeat it in a 
later e-mail thread.

If I copy and paste the content of each e-mail from the previous thread, 
does that make them "carry weight" again? What if I contact the authors 
of each, and ask them to do so? Is that a good use of anyone's time, 
when we can just read the archives?



> 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). 


I don't think "sentiment" is something we should place value on. As I 
said in my last e-mail, we should be weighing the merit of the arguments 
for and against, not the people who are making them.

I don't see value in repeating the same arguments every X months or 
years, like appointing a different jury to try the same case.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]