Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123777
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------QUxpvBGR7z96VY96OlooyQ4j"
Message-ID: <82e220e3-e3e6-42a5-9134-d773e0803715@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:11:01 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static class
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
 <CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------QUxpvBGR7z96VY96OlooyQ4j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 24/06/2024 07:59, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 02:15 Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Internals!
>
>     I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class
>     <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class>.
>
>
> Hi! and good luck with the RFC.

Hi Alex, and thanks for your excellent feedback!

> While I don't use static classes, I can see how this can be used by 
> others.

It is my sincere hope that everyone will vote with similar empathy.

> Feedback:
>
> 1. I agree that static classes may extend other non-static classes 
> (that might have some static behavior).
To be clear, they must /exclusively/ have static members, not just /some/.
> But I think that static classes should be extended only by other 
> static classes, or at least for the first iteration of these feature.
> This should be documented more in the RFC, no matter how it ends up being.
This is an interesting debate, and something we may end up doing. I am 
currently undecided if it would be better to enforce full static class 
hierarchy, but I could definitely be so convinced.
> 1.1 I think using a static class as a type should be considered an 
> error, as there will never be instances of it if we consider all child 
> classes will also be static classes.
> Of course, this cannot be an error on php side given the class per 
> file loading separation.
This is a very interesting point that I had not considered. I agree, it 
should be correct to forbid type hinting static classes. However, if I 
understood you correctly, we cannot actually implement that? My 
knowledge of engine internals is too weak to know the correct answer 
here. If it is possible, I think we should do it.
> 2. __set_state() is strongly linked to exporting a class instance as a 
> valid php string, and is used to reconstruct the class instance upon 
> execution.
> Considering we forbid instances, we should not support __set_state(). 
> If you think otherwise, please share an example how it can be used.

Thank you for catching this. This is strictly a mistake on my part. I 
have never used, or even heard of, __set_state() in my life. I was 
merely perusing the magic methods to make sure I caught them all and it 
seemed, at a glance, this might apply to static classes, but as you 
point out, if this indeed requires an instance then it does not apply. I 
will remove this from the next version of the RFC, which I shall publish 
imminently.

Many thanks,
Bilge

--------------QUxpvBGR7z96VY96OlooyQ4j
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/06/2024 07:59, Alexandru
      Pătrănescu wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div>On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 02:15 Bilge &lt;<a
            href="mailto:bilge@scriptfusion.com" target="_blank"
            rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
            class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bilge@scriptfusion.com</a>&gt;
          wrote:
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi
              Internals!<br>
              <br>
              I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class <br>
              &lt;<a href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class"
                rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class</a>&gt;.<br>
              <br>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Hi! and good luck with the RFC.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Hi Alex, and thanks for your excellent feedback!</p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto">While I don't use static classes, I can see how
          this can be used by others.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>It is my sincere hope that everyone will vote with similar
      empathy.<br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto">Feedback:</div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">1. I agree that static classes may extend other
          non-static classes (that might have some static behavior).</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    To be clear, they must <i>exclusively</i> have static members, not
    just <i>some</i>.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto">But I think that static classes should be
          extended only by other static classes, or at least for the
          first iteration of these feature.</div>
        <div dir="auto">This should be documented more in the RFC, no
          matter how it ends up being.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    This is an interesting debate, and something we may end up doing. I
    am currently undecided if it would be better to enforce full static
    class hierarchy, but I could definitely be so convinced.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto">1.1 I think using a static class as a type
          should be considered an error, as there will never be
          instances of it if we consider all child classes will also be
          static classes.</div>
        <div dir="auto">Of course, this cannot be an error on php side
          given the class per file loading separation.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    This is a very interesting point that I had not considered. I agree,
    it should be correct to forbid type hinting static classes. However,
    if I understood you correctly, we cannot actually implement that? My
    knowledge of engine internals is too weak to know the correct answer
    here. If it is possible, I think we should do it.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzB0b9hpqr03DLOtZVkSL6c7A0P7tb=iwZ7BGH5RDC_sRA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto">2. __set_state() is strongly linked to exporting
          a class instance as a valid php string, and is used to
          reconstruct the class instance upon execution.</div>
        <div dir="auto">Considering we forbid instances, we should not
          support __set_state(). If you think otherwise, please share an
          example how it can be used.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Thank you for catching this. This is strictly a mistake on my
      part. I have never used, or even heard of, __set_state() in my
      life. I was merely perusing the magic methods to make sure I
      caught them all and it seemed, at a glance, this might apply to
      static classes, but as you point out, if this indeed requires an
      instance then it does not apply. I will remove this from the next
      version of the RFC, which I shall publish imminently.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Many thanks,<br>
      Bilge<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------QUxpvBGR7z96VY96OlooyQ4j--