Re: Typed constants revisited

Guilliam, On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 6:35 AM Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:55 PM Mark Niebergall <mbniebergall@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> (...) >> >> Another example I often see in my projects could be used with a similar >> example: >> >> ``` >> abstract class Bird >> { >> public const bool CAN_FLY; >> public const string FAMILY; >> public function canFly(): bool >> { >> return self::CAN_FLY; >> } >> } >> final class EmperorPenguin extends Bird >> { >> public const bool CAN_FLY = false; >> public const string FAMILY = 'penguin'; >> } >> ``` >> > > I had this "need" too (and used abstract static methods where the > implementations just return a literal value...). > > Just 2 remarks: in abstract class Bird, shouldn't it be: > - "*abstract* public const bool CAN_FLY;" (and same for FAMILY) > - "return *static*::CAN_FLY;" > ? > I intentionally left abstract out of public const bool CAN_FLY; in the abstract class for consistency with the implementation with interface, which would also have to be public const bool CAN_FLY;. Currently abstract is only used in front of methods `abstract function doThing(): bool;`. Open to discussion - which way is ideal or preferred? That could be included as a subset of an RFC vote if a consensus during discussion isn't reached. Good correction, yes, return static::CAN_FLY; in that example in the concrete child class. > > Regards, > > -- > Guilliam Xavier >