Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124293
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------arRwxjjJD8Dfkedp0KQE0DMu"
Message-ID: <037a5aaf-9652-45e4-8848-ed59bffffb6c@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 18:53:32 +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>
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>
 <30320e4c-aa99-4fb6-b475-d21f5fe85a26@scriptfusion.com>
 <CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Cc: Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com>,
 Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------arRwxjjJD8Dfkedp0KQE0DMu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 08/07/2024 15:13, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
> But I understand that once a class is static, all the chain of 
> inheritance should be made of static classes, going up or down (and I 
> would also think we can add interfaces and traits.).
Correct.
> If interfaces are not included, do we allow implementing an interface?
Yes.
> If we allow implementing an interface, should that interface contain 
> only static members?
Yes. You can technically implement an interface that has instance 
methods, but you will either: get a compile-time error that you didn't 
implement the instance method, or a compile-time error that you didn't 
mark the (instance) method as static in a static class. So although you 
won't get an error about implementing the interface itself, you will be 
forced to not implement an interface containing any instance methods in 
a static class, by one of those two (somewhat indirect) errors.
> Same for traits.
Yes
> For completeness, if we think that the static keyword on a class-level 
> entity means that it will allow only static members on that entity, 
> all class-level entities should be able to be marked as "static".:

I understand that sentiment, however I'm still not going to entertain it 
right now because this RFC seems to have a tenuous chance of passing at 
best. I should think we will be lucky to get 50% of the vote, let alone 
the 66% required to pass, and any further (unnecessary) language 
changes, such as introducing `static interface` or `static trait`s will 
probably lower those odds. I'm sorry it's like that, but that's how the 
landscape looks to me. But not to be too disheartened; both of those 
things can be trivially added in a follow-up PR if there is a strong 
desire. That is, accepting this RFC in no way precludes the possibility 
of going down that road later.

Cheers,
Bilge

--------------arRwxjjJD8Dfkedp0KQE0DMu
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 15:13, Alexandru
      Pătrănescu wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div>But I understand that once a class is static, all the
            chain of inheritance should be made of static classes, going
            up or down (and I would also think we can add interfaces and
            traits.).</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Correct.
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div>If interfaces are not included, do we allow implementing
            an interface?</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Yes.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div>If we allow implementing an interface, should that
            interface contain only static members?</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Yes. You can technically implement an interface that has instance
    methods, but you will either: get a compile-time error that you
    didn't implement the instance method, or a compile-time error that
    you didn't mark the (instance) method as static in a static class.
    So although you won't get an error about implementing the interface
    itself, you will be forced to not implement an interface containing
    any instance methods in a static class, by one of those two
    (somewhat indirect) errors.
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div>Same for traits.</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Yes<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwdEzDTFJg9ruqKmnU9Y2MNfxgq3G07k_pUpaJa1Brm8D2fuQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div>
            <div>For completeness, if we think that the static keyword
              on a class-level entity means that it will allow only
              static members on that entity, all class-level entities
              should be able to be marked as "static".:</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>I understand that sentiment, however I'm still not going to
      entertain it right now because this RFC seems to have a tenuous
      chance of passing at best. I should think we will be lucky to get
      50% of the vote, let alone the 66% required to pass, and any
      further (unnecessary) language changes, such as introducing
      `static interface` or `static trait`s will probably lower those
      odds. I'm sorry it's like that, but that's how the landscape looks
      to me. But not to be too disheartened; both of those things can be
      trivially added in a follow-up PR if there is a strong desire.
      That is, accepting this RFC in no way precludes the possibility of
      going down that road later.</p>
    <p>Cheers,<br>
      Bilge<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------arRwxjjJD8Dfkedp0KQE0DMu--