Re: Static class
| From: | Bilge | Date: | Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:40:04 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Static class | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-123614@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 15/06/2024 14:53, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
On 15/06/2024 12:16, Bilge wrote:That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the idea was rejected, other than people didn't like "abstract final" as the syntax (thank God). As for why "static" was rejected, as stated, I don't get a good sense of it at all, but rather than fall back on the opinions of many who are mostly absent among those polled nine years ago, I'd rather get a sense of the current sentiment of those present today. Cheers, BilgeI want to introduce theThis has been proposed before, and was rejected at vote. It was nearly 10 years ago, so opinions may have changed, but it would be worth reading through the prior discussion to anticipate or counter the objections raised, and avoid re-treading the same ground. - RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class - Pre-vote discussion threads: https://externals.io/message/79211 and https://externals.io/message/79338 - Final vote thread: https://externals.io/message/79601 Searching my list archive, I find that it came up again a few months ago, which I'd entirely forgotten: https://externals.io/message/121717 Slightly tangential, but some of the same discussion also came up on these rather lengthy threads about "static class constructors": https://externals.io/message/84602 and https://externals.io/message/85779 Regards, Hi Rowan,statickeyword at the class declaration level. That is, the following would be valid:static class Foo {}.