Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79226
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54771C61.5040507@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:43:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFp73XvRNoDF5N1-H4+YBSB3G2_OBAM3+x6Tu3beT5-H9O+deg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMyk_AYuOz7cQsU1VT4F_1nScQ1XWTJend6pTFu9o0Y8E_XL3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMyk_AYuOz7cQsU1VT4F_1nScQ1XWTJend6pTFu9o0Y8E_XL3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abstract final classes
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Lazare Inepologlou wrote on 27/11/2014 10:35:
> 2014-11-27 4:47 GMT+01:00 guilhermeblanco@gmail.com <
> guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I worked on an implementation of a somehow controversial concept that
>> exists in hack and C#: abstract final classes.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class
>>
>> My motivation is to further expand class support to add modifiers (PPP -
>> public, protected, private). I added this change to initially segregate
>> grammar rules. It was an easy feature without extensive complexity and
>> covers some use-cases.
>>
>>
> "Abstract final" is a strange way to name it. What you want is a "static"
> class:
>
> * The fact that one cannot initialise an abstract class is only a side
> effect. Abstract classes are meant to be used for inheritance.
>
> * Abstract static methods are not possible (one more reason why abstract is
> a bad name).
>
> * A "static" class does not have to be final, given the fact that PHP is
> one of the few languages that offer a robust Late Static Binding.

This has always been my feeling. To me, "abstract" means "must be 
extended", and "final" means "can't be extended", so combining the two 
seems like a self-contradiction.

The fact that abstract classes allow static methods to be called without 
sub-classing always seems a bit odd to me - it's as though only the 
constructor is really abstract, not the whole class.

A "static" class, however, whether "final" or not, is definitely 
something I've wanted.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]