Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127018
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------ju2ISWfxFBgIEQ8ABxCcgi71"
Message-ID: <d7e5542b-2cc6-4be8-9c01-00a670cdb871@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 21:03:16 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Usable classes?
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <059201dba2ee$35c7bc00$a1573400$@glaive.pro>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <059201dba2ee$35c7bc00$a1573400$@glaive.pro>
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------ju2ISWfxFBgIEQ8ABxCcgi71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 01/04/2025 11:09, Juris Evertovskis wrote:
>
> ## Part B. Usable classes
>
> Idea: allow using normal classes in the trait list.
>

Poking around in the archives, it seems there was a lot of discussion 
about what exactly "horizontal reuse" should look like before the 
current version of traits was added, way back in 2008. There were at 
least 4 RFCs drafted with different versions:

- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nonbreakabletraits
- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits
- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mixin
- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse

That last one, interestingly, has the implemented definition of traits, 
but also a declined feature of "grafts", which plugged whole classes 
together with slightly different semantics.

You might be interested to skim through those, and some of the threads 
from the time (e.g. on https://externals.io) to see why they ended up 
how they did.


-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--------------ju2ISWfxFBgIEQ8ABxCcgi71
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/04/2025 11:09, Juris Evertovskis
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:059201dba2ee$35c7bc00$a1573400$@glaive.pro">
      <p class="MsoNormal">## Part B. Usable classes<o:p></o:p><o:p> <br>
        </o:p></p>
      <p class="MsoNormal">Idea: allow using normal classes in the trait
        list.</p>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Poking around in the archives, it seems there was a lot of
      discussion about what exactly "horizontal reuse" should look like
      before the current version of traits was added, way back in 2008.
      There were at least 4 RFCs drafted with different versions:</p>
    <p>- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nonbreakabletraits">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nonbreakabletraits</a><br>
      - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits</a><br>
      - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mixin">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mixin</a><br>
      - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse</a></p>
    <p>That last one, interestingly, has the implemented definition of
      traits, but also a declined feature of "grafts", which plugged
      whole classes together with slightly different semantics.</p>
    <p>You might be interested to skim through those, and some of the
      threads from the time (e.g. on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://externals.io">https://externals.io</a>) to see why
      they ended up how they did.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]</pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------ju2ISWfxFBgIEQ8ABxCcgi71--