Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123888
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
 <ef0c3617-6757-45a1-a485-3f7c197fd599@app.fastmail.com> <4596aa73-cfd4-2292-7191-2839a5bab695@php.net>
 <CAM7F2--zTgD7ar7cXcX9xXf=5ZdLpz0tSVqUns1COonUKbZg9Q@mail.gmail.com> <0b665744-b146-4276-9c55-e71717d974fd@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0b665744-b146-4276-9c55-e71717d974fd@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:18:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CAM7F2-88CFFryEasw4TM8R333R2bDNUDkBEbmJOzVJOKU=YhwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static class
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0644c061bd0b80a"
From: lnearwaju@gmail.com (Lanre)

--000000000000b0644c061bd0b80a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That isn't a top post, look again.And I am not referring to
packages,rather to the ability to define functions that aren't exposed to
the users of a library. C doesn't have packages either yet this is possible
in it. And marking it as internal is not the same thing at all. I am not
going to argue about why a developer would use static methods and whether
that is actually a sign that the developer doesn't understand OOP. But I do
want to get this straight.  Instead of actually hiding the function, your
idea is to mark it with @internal (via PHPDoc)? To you, that solves the
problem?

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:46=E2=80=AFPM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.=
com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 6:05 PM, Lanre wrote:
> > In JavaScript/Typescript, we can declare functions that are local to
> > the current file by not exporting them. In C/C++ this is achieved by
> > simply writing the function in the implementation file as opposed to
> > the header. However, achieving a similar level of privacy in PHP
> > requires using private static methods, or else you incur the overhead
> > of creating an object for stateless functions. How do you propose
> > handling such cases using namespaced functions? Can you think of any
> > scenarios where hiding non-API functions might be necessary? I'm
> > curious why you keep returning to namespaced functions when they don't
> > fulfill the same role.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lanre
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
> PHP has no concept of packages at present, and thus no concept of
> package-level scope.  A private static method is private not to a file or
> package, but to that class.  (The class and file usually correlate in
> practice, but there's nothing in the language that mandates that.)  I wou=
ld
> love to have a concept of packages that we could use for scope, as most
> more recent languages have concluded that is the correct level at which t=
o
> enforce visibility, NOT objects/classes.  That's an entirely separate
> question, however.
>
> For marking a function as "package private", the same way you would for a
> package-private class today: @internal docblock.  It's not ideal (the ide=
al
> would require packages), but it still communicates the intent, has worked
> for classes for 15 years at least, and signals "if you use this
> class/function/thing and it breaks later, that's on you, don't come cryin=
g
> to me."
>
> (ab)using static classes to emulate a pseudo-single-class-package is...
> abusing static.
>
> To be blunt, 90% of uses of static methods in PHP are a sign the develope=
r
> doesn't actually understand OOP and is just writing procedural code with
> more steps.  The other 10% are either named constructors or cases that ca=
n
> now be replaced with attributes.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>

--000000000000b0644c061bd0b80a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">That isn&#39;t a top post, look again.And I am not referri=
ng to packages,rather=C2=A0to the ability to define functions that aren&#39=
;t exposed to the users of a library. C doesn&#39;t have packages either ye=
t this is possible in it. And marking it as internal is not the same thing =
at all. I am not going to argue=C2=A0about why a developer would use static=
 methods and whether that is actually a sign that the developer doesn&#39;t=
 understand OOP. But I do want to get this straight.=C2=A0 Instead of actua=
lly hiding the function, your idea is to mark it with=C2=A0@internal (via P=
HPDoc)? To you, that solves the problem?</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:46=E2=80=
=AFPM Larry Garfield &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@ga=
rfieldtech.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd=
ing-left:1ex">On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 6:05 PM, Lanre wrote:<br>
&gt; In JavaScript/Typescript, we can declare functions that are local to <=
br>
&gt; the current file by not exporting them. In C/C++ this is achieved by <=
br>
&gt; simply writing the function in the implementation file as opposed to <=
br>
&gt; the header. However, achieving a similar level of privacy in PHP <br>
&gt; requires using private static methods, or else you incur the overhead =
<br>
&gt; of creating an object for stateless functions. How do you propose <br>
&gt; handling such cases using namespaced functions? Can you think of any <=
br>
&gt; scenarios where hiding non-API functions might be necessary? I&#39;m <=
br>
&gt; curious why you keep returning to namespaced functions when they don&#=
39;t <br>
&gt; fulfill the same role.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Cheers,<br>
&gt; Lanre<br>
<br>
Please don&#39;t top-post.<br>
<br>
PHP has no concept of packages at present, and thus no concept of package-l=
evel scope.=C2=A0 A private static method is private not to a file or packa=
ge, but to that class.=C2=A0 (The class and file usually correlate in pract=
ice, but there&#39;s nothing in the language that mandates that.)=C2=A0 I w=
ould love to have a concept of packages that we could use for scope, as mos=
t more recent languages have concluded that is the correct level at which t=
o enforce visibility, NOT objects/classes.=C2=A0 That&#39;s an entirely sep=
arate question, however.<br>
<br>
For marking a function as &quot;package private&quot;, the same way you wou=
ld for a package-private class today: @internal docblock.=C2=A0 It&#39;s no=
t ideal (the ideal would require packages), but it still communicates the i=
ntent, has worked for classes for 15 years at least, and signals &quot;if y=
ou use this class/function/thing and it breaks later, that&#39;s on you, do=
n&#39;t come crying to me.&quot;<br>
<br>
(ab)using static classes to emulate a pseudo-single-class-package is... abu=
sing static.=C2=A0 <br>
<br>
To be blunt, 90% of uses of static methods in PHP are a sign the developer =
doesn&#39;t actually understand OOP and is just writing procedural code wit=
h more steps.=C2=A0 The other 10% are either named constructors or cases th=
at can now be replaced with attributes.<br>
<br>
--Larry Garfield<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000b0644c061bd0b80a--