Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123999
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
In-Reply-To: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:58:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPJdum=tBh8W2qJkwZVWCxcVODYVFOcZkv7jdzmd2sb1Ud2cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static class
To: Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d6dcaf061bf98290"
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Benjamin_Au=C3=9Fenhofer?=)

--000000000000d6dcaf061bf98290
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:15=E2=80=AFAM Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com> wrot=
e:

> Hi Internals!
>
> I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class
> <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class>.
>
> This work is based on the previous discussion thread on this list of the
> same name, and hopefully captured all the relevant details,
> notwithstanding anything unanticipated that may present itself during
> the implementation. Let me know if you feel anything important has been
> missed. I am aware it omits to mention specifics about messages so
> emitted when runtime or compile-time errors occur, but I anticipate this
> can be hashed out in the PR, unless consensus indicates otherwise.
>
> I am aware this idea is not supported by everyone, but there seemed to
> be enough positive voices for it to be worth a shot. I'd like to get a
> better idea of where people might stand when it comes down to a vote,
> now there is a formal RFC, so we know whether it's worth completing the
> implementation, although any sentiments so proffered are of course not a
> commitment to vote any particular way and nobody should feel compelled
> to speak to that unless comfortable. Looking forward to feedback!
>

while i wouldn't ordinarily find a lot of use-cases for myself for this, i
think its consistent with final and readonly to allow static on classes as
well. The code I believe would be mostly at compile time anyways to do
these checks, except for new $class.

So in general I would vote yes for this, if all edge cases are clear and
considered.

>
> Cheers,
> Bilge
>

--000000000000d6dcaf061bf98290
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:15=E2=80=AF=
AM Bilge &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bilge@scriptfusion.com">bilge@scriptfusion.c=
om</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-le=
ft-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Internals!<br>
<br>
I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class <br>
&lt;<a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class</a>&gt;.<br>
<br>
This work is based on the previous discussion thread on this list of the <b=
r>
same name, and hopefully captured all the relevant details, <br>
notwithstanding anything unanticipated that may present itself during <br>
the implementation. Let me know if you feel anything important has been <br=
>
missed. I am aware it omits to mention specifics about messages so <br>
emitted when runtime or compile-time errors occur, but I anticipate this <b=
r>
can be hashed out in the PR, unless consensus indicates otherwise.<br>
<br>
I am aware this idea is not supported by everyone, but there seemed to <br>
be enough positive voices for it to be worth a shot. I&#39;d like to get a =
<br>
better idea of where people might stand when it comes down to a vote, <br>
now there is a formal RFC, so we know whether it&#39;s worth completing the=
 <br>
implementation, although any sentiments so proffered are of course not a <b=
r>
commitment to vote any particular way and nobody should feel compelled <br>
to speak to that unless comfortable. Looking forward to feedback!<br></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>while i wouldn&#39;t ordinarily find a lot of us=
e-cases for myself for this, i think its consistent with final and readonly=
 to allow static on classes as well. The code I believe would be mostly at =
compile time anyways to do these checks, except for new $class.</div><div><=
br></div><div>So in general I would vote yes for this, if all edge cases ar=
e clear and considered.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Bilge<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000d6dcaf061bf98290--