Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85793
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CB.90.41712.5B6CB255@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CB.90.41712.5B6CB255@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:24:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NoxUn_Tmb3Pg_UgZnfz1cPB+eBU5dnQhvTOc9=bu5mePg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johannes Ott <mail@deroetzi.de>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New RFC draft "static class constructor"
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Johannes Ott <mail@deroetzi.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.

The static constructor cannot be called by the user, which means it
shouldn't even register as a function. Additionally, it is always
private. Given these constraints I would prefer to change this syntax:

class Config {

    private static $arIni;

    private static function __static() {
        $self::$arIni = parse_ini_file('config.ini');
    }
}

To this (borrowed from Java):

class Config {

    private static $arIni;

    static {
        $self::$arIni = parse_ini_file('config.ini');
    }
}

I do not see any reason to do the former unless the latter has
conflicts in the parser, which I don't think it would.