Req #47971 [Com]: Allow 'static' keyword to be applied to entire classes
Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47971&edit=1
ID: 47971
Comment by: metamarkers at gmail dot com
Reported by: cscott at ggot dot org
Summary: Allow 'static' keyword to be applied to entire
classes
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package: Class/Object related
Operating System: *
PHP Version: *
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
I think what you're describing is a "final abstract" class, which has been
suggested I think, though I can't find it in the requests.
So make an abstract class and use a trait to pull in an empty final private
constructor that triggers an E_USER_ERROR. But this is fighting with the
developer, and adds an unnecessary layer. The developer will always win. People
are free to throw a wrench into their own machinery if they want.
The flavor of the class should have no bearing on the default scope of its
members. Members need to be declared as the scope they should have. What you're
suggesting also implies we should be able to make protected and private classes
(in the global scope).
I'm in support of "final abstract" / "static" classes. Doesn't seem to
be a
reason to disallow this. Some kind of declaration that says "this class is
inert, you can't instantiate it".
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-12-18 05:57:03] phpmpan at mpan dot pl
One note:
PHP allows calling static methods on class instances and this actually works faster* than pure
static call. Compare:
for (... many times ...) {
UtilityClass::staticMethod();
}
vs
$instance = new UtilityClass();
for (... many times ...) {
$instance->staticMethod();
}
Creating an instance of a utility class is a neat optimization in heavy loops.
Do not consider me an advocate of premature optimization, but if g*to was introduced in PHP because
generated code may benefit from it, ability to create instances of utility classes should not be
prohibited for the same reason. If OP's proposition is implemented, people will flock to it,
effectively blocking ability to use the described solution.
____
* 25% less time consumed; tests were performed about a year ago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-10-26 16:09:57] dagguh at gmail dot com
What you are referring to is a utility class.
It only has static members and a private constructor, which should never be
called (even from the class itself).
Your suggestion could be useful, because implementing private empty constructors
is just boilerplate code.
PS. Some people even throw an exception inside the private constructor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-10-31 00:27:53] cscott at ggot dot org
For Relevancy: I do not believe that namespaces solve this problem, as
__autoload does not work with namespaces (and, for obvious reasons,
shouldn't).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-04-14 21:07:14] cscott at ggot dot org
Description:
------------
Fairly simple: A developer is allowed to define his/her classes as abstract or final, but not as
static. For continuity's sake, it would be preferable to be able to declare classes as static
as well. This would greatly ease the creation of static function collections/libraries, especially
those included with __autoload().
When a class is declared as abstract, it is a statement at the open that this is an incomplete
member; you can specify any method inside a class to be abstract and the class is effectively
abstract, yet this keyword is allowed in the class declaration.
When a class is declared final, it is a statement at the open that all members are to be considered
final, and that this class should not be extended any further.
By allowing classes to be declared as static, it would follow with allowing "abstract class
foo" in the sense that the keyword reflects the contents of the class, and would follow with
"final class foo" in that it would define a binding construct for all members of the
class.
Whether
a) In a static class, all methods and members are automatically static
-OR-
b) In a static class, all methods and members must be declared static
Is surely not for me to decide -- either is useful, as it either forces me to ensure all members are
static, or it does the legwork for me. As such, I make no suggestion and defer to the wisdom of the
developer(s).
Thank you for your consideration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47971&edit=1
Thread (7 messages)