Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124851
Message-ID: <83a26ddc2470aeb4af7c0a2ea6991350a91c980a.camel@ageofdream.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Static class
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:21:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8f4d26f8-4f38-4fa6-b5e0-f05fe3c74e9b@scriptfusion.com>
References: <975490b1-8232-4f27-b850-212f6da64b3a@scriptfusion.com>
	 <5a6c8431-011a-49cb-8f33-93f48e018eaf@scriptfusion.com>
	 <b5c029390dcfc23e8ed56f3e1b3cd8d1fd411f17.camel@ageofdream.com>
	 <8f4d26f8-4f38-4fa6-b5e0-f05fe3c74e9b@scriptfusion.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: lists@ageofdream.com (Nick Lockheart)

On Sat, 2024-08-10 at 23:37 +0100, Bilge wrote:
> On 10/08/2024 23:32, Nick Lockheart wrote:
> > > Voting has now concluded for static class. The first vote cast
> > > was
> > > for, and of the first four votes cast, three were for and one was
> > > against. As the votes continued to roll in, however, it was clear
> > > which direction the wind was blowing. The final tally reached the
> > > the
> > > 2/3 critical mass required... in the negative. With 20 votes
> > > against
> > > and only 11 for, with one final vote being cast for in the final
> > > few
> > > days, it would not come close to saving this one. With such a
> > > blowout
> > > defeat, I consider this proposal dismissed with prejudice,
> > > meaning
> > > we'll never speak of it again.
> > I like the idea of static classes.
>=20
> NEVER AGAIN! =F0=9F=98=86

Seriously, Don't give up.

readonly properties were declined in 2014. It's now part of PHP.

There's many other examples like that.

Sometimes you just need to beat the dead horse until it turns into
Pegasus.=20