Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123620
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-515-g87b2bad5a-fm-20240604.001-g87b2bad5
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <251be3dd-08a9-414c-a6c6-2de25d6fd2b1@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 12:19:44 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
Content-Type: text/plain
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, at 9:40 AM, 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 
>>> 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

Please see my comments in the thread from just a few months ago that Rowan linked.  I still stand by every one of them, and absolutely oppose "all static" classes, unequivocally for the reasons stated.

Consider this comment a shorthand for copy-pasting my previous posts to this thread. :-)

--Larry Garfield