Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91270
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain etsy.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKxY8U96xMauL_9CON9wdh6NK=CKeveLA+g_2baVAZzwiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF8MkRhYJZApgQbr16DmDdFxET9ORkah9jxabL7nbHFKYh0N1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF8MkRgyEk4-JjxuxqVo7pO12jXRehpDGtYzLshD6PuLUdJCkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1455791700.2381299.524770354.2D139723@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAPKYkKxY8U96xMauL_9CON9wdh6NK=CKeveLA+g_2baVAZzwiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF8MkRiaVBQwc2iP5cM2_jsrbfYGZB-UdjybS2W2xbp2rtNfVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a74f6a68f09052c0ee438
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Traits with interfaces
From: kgessner@etsy.com (Kevin Gessner)

--001a113a74f6a68f09052c0ee438
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Chase and Larry,

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:35 AM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
> wrote:
>  I'd rather the class
> > still need to self-declare the interface; that it uses a trait to
> > fulfill that contract is irrelevant to the outside world.
> >
> I agree, in theory, but I also think we introduce confusion. Every other OO
> rule says you get "everything*" from what you are using (extending a
> subclass gets you all the parent classes, implementing an interface that
> extends an interface gets you the parent interface, using a trait that uses
> a trait gets you both traits, etc). Perhaps we need a different keyword?
>

I'm wary of a new keyword, particularly because this situation isn't really
that different from what "implements" means.  I think if we wanted to go
down the route of new syntax, I'd want to expand the `use` statement for
traits to include or exclude any interfaces that a trait provides.  But I
don't think a syntax change is worth it for this feature, for the cognitive
and language overhead.


> [snip]
>
> At that point, the benefit becomes two-fold:
> >
> > 1) Communicate to users of the trait what the intent of the trait is: To
> > provide the boilerplate for some interface, or portion thereof.  This
> > could be covered by PHPDoc, potentially, and I've suggested the same for
> > PSR-5 before.
> >
> > Agreed


>
> > 2) Ask the engine to do a syntax check on the class to make sure I did
> > not forget something or screwed up in some way.  That is, not fulfilling
> > the interface on the trait would cause a parse error (or an error in my
> > IDE), forcing me to fix my bug before I even try running it.  PHPDoc
> > would NOT have this benefit.
> >
> > Thus I feel this addition does have value that a PHPDoc alternative
> > would not.
> >
> > Good point. I was of the opinion "we can just use comments to declare
> intent," but hadn't really thought of using the engine in this way. It
> makes sense.
>

That makes sense -- I like having the language enforce intent, rather than
just comments (which always rot, in my experience).


>
>
>
> > --Larry Garfield
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> > --
> -- Chase
> chasepeeler@gmail.com
>

--001a113a74f6a68f09052c0ee438--