Re: Typed constants revisited

> 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. > I understand, but note that methods are implicitly abstract in an interface, but it must be explicit in an abstract class; and since I see the proposed feature mainly as a "replacement" for abstract static methods [whose all implementations just return a literal value]... (anyway, not super important)