Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79252 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53566 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2014 20:38:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Nov 2014 20:38:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=guilhermeblanco@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.177 mail-ie0-f177.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.177] ([209.85.223.177:55382] helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 85/CA-27910-DCB87745 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:38:38 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id rd18so5024207iec.22 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:38:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=YvcyCeata6TkoxFtRPJaqjtmb2DgY20i09WKqmYq/T4=; b=vV9mRR2Yo8zXu9of925EdpqLuBOHq8zGIICedwAZChRcc6hxhHGa7nP93H/lXJpCch tcdWulBthENEQ5C878Pn/DHj5aF/yqrJvtZZpFeBL8G0yGzUCbTxjwoULMuLOG6K6h2G Y5FpNrZLK6ke/9H/ZCiB8ABAiNwVhoYwnGuJ+fMwdtpznF9QwnP53bPBeEOlU7osujq1 D4rSF+nEVzwflujZymxvTUpfMwYfj2R79j6PpheSp30zRWRUsSrhQ8wQFk9kDpPOT4Wm zIJeVmPJWCLTooRA1k9sI380kbZtLdpJzf0v3EyHoUTeGHsLQW02RFwDyTAfctfIkXan iz9g== X-Received: by 10.107.131.133 with SMTP id n5mr34596580ioi.30.1417120714172; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:38:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.238.75 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:38:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <547747F1.4000501@gmail.com> References: <547723A8.8090008@gmail.com> <54773DD8.7030907@gmail.com> <547747F1.4000501@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: Rowan Collins Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ebbf8c5b01f0508dd2057 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abstract final classes From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com") --001a113ebbf8c5b01f0508dd2057 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Ok... so if I update the RFC to be "static class", does that make everybody happy? I mainly wanna get this forward thinking trend... =) On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Rowan Collins wrote: > guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote on 27/11/2014 15:34: > >> > This is true of classes intended to be static whether or not they are >> final. Allowing a "static class" would allow you to >> > enforce that all methods (and properties) must be static without >> banning users from extending it (which is a completely >> > orthogonal decision). >> >> So if I still want to not allow anyone to extend it, I would then have a >> final static class. Remember, I don't want people to change methods' >> visibility. >> > > Yep, that's the idea. I see no reason, particularly with Late Static > Binding, that it shouldn't be possible to have a static class which can be > extended by a static sub-class, if that fits a particular use case. > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Guilherme Blanco MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com GTalk: guilhermeblanco Toronto - ON/Canada --001a113ebbf8c5b01f0508dd2057--