Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124288
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------EOO6NMuP1L9UQHN8GDGz22jl"
Message-ID: <30320e4c-aa99-4fb6-b475-d21f5fe85a26@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:21:44 +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>,
 Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Cc: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
 <f3e738cd-dd9b-490e-a1f1-a1227cb696d2@scriptfusion.com>
 <D76AE2E1-E75F-41DF-844E-963613F4EC0D@newclarity.net>
 <743774dd-2281-458d-b0fa-d3e8806a3516@scriptfusion.com>
 <3B6AF286-642C-4850-9577-B10049CE4C1E@koalephant.com>
 <CAAwdEzBVEqtMxbinycBHp5Hg-spywHGzPcRpttBnDyV-sy+SuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzBVEqtMxbinycBHp5Hg-spywHGzPcRpttBnDyV-sy+SuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------EOO6NMuP1L9UQHN8GDGz22jl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 08/07/2024 12:48, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 1:12 PM Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com> 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>     So really the question should be: why do you feel the need to
>     *disallow* a combination that has no technical issues, and works
>     already? If you're going to disallow abstract why not disallow any
>     class inheritance at all? Because that's what abstract relates to:
>     class hierarchy. Why remove some support but keep the rest?
>
The reason to remove abstract was because it was thought `static` means 
the same as `abstract`. That is, neither can be instantiated. However, 
clearly that is short-sighted as Alex's example proves. That is, we 
cannot simply replace `abstract` with `static` because that precludes us 
from having an incomplete definition where some methods are still not 
yet implemented. As such, I am quite convinced by your arguments, and 
will make the change to add `abstract` support back in; mainly because 
removing abstract support defies our fundamental razor (it's something 
we can already do).
>
> If we support inheritance for static classes, we should allow static 
> on both interface and abstract classes.
>
What do you mean by /allow static on [...] interface/? Are you saying 
you also expect to see `static interface` support? (This is something I 
am absolutely not considering at this time, without a very good argument 
in favour of).

Cheers,
Bilge

--------------EOO6NMuP1L9UQHN8GDGz22jl
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 08/07/2024 12:48, Alexandru
      Pătrănescu wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzBVEqtMxbinycBHp5Hg-spywHGzPcRpttBnDyV-sy+SuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at
            1:12 PM Stephen Reay &lt;<a
              href="mailto:php-lists@koalephant.com"
              moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">php-lists@koalephant.com</a>&gt;
            wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div><br
                id="m_-7742007593558332291lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>So really the question should be: why do you feel the
                need to *disallow* a combination that has no technical
                issues, and works already? If you're going to disallow
                abstract why not disallow any class inheritance at all?
                Because that's what abstract relates to: class
                hierarchy. Why remove some support but keep the rest?</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    The reason to remove abstract was because it was thought `static`
    means the same as `abstract`. That is, neither can be instantiated.
    However, clearly that is short-sighted as Alex's example proves.
    That is, we cannot simply replace `abstract` with `static` because
    that precludes us from having an incomplete definition where some
    methods are still not yet implemented. As such, I am quite convinced
    by your arguments, and will make the change to add `abstract`
    support back in; mainly because removing abstract support defies our
    fundamental razor (it's something we can already do).<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzBVEqtMxbinycBHp5Hg-spywHGzPcRpttBnDyV-sy+SuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>If we support inheritance for static classes, we should
            allow static on both interface and abstract classes.<br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>What do you mean by <i>allow static on [...] interface</i>? Are
      you saying you also expect to see `static interface` support?
      (This is something I am absolutely not considering at this time,
      without a very good argument in favour of).</p>
    <p>Cheers,<br>
      Bilge<br>
    </p>
    <p></p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------EOO6NMuP1L9UQHN8GDGz22jl--