Re: Static class

On 15/06/2024 17:17, Bilge wrote:

You already provided a counter-point to this; we can't autoload functions.

Just to reiterate, please do not attribute any of the arguments or counter-arguments to me. They were my attempt, from memory, to summarise previous discussions.

Besides, there may be good reason (organizationally) to group sets of static functionality together (in a class) rather than having them as free-standing functions only so grouped in a file (which does not necessarily imply the same degree of cohesion).

I don't think "free-standing functions ... grouped in a file" is a valid description of namespaced functions. In case there is some misunderstanding, the point is that "Foo::bar()" is essentially equivalent to "Foo\bar()"

even if an opinion was valid back then, if nobody were to uphold it today, it wouldn't carry any weight now

I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. If somebody makes a valid point, it doesn't automatically become invalid because time has passed, or because nobody happens to repeat it in a later e-mail thread. If I copy and paste the content of each e-mail from the previous thread, does that make them "carry weight" again? What if I contact the authors of each, and ask them to do so? Is that a good use of anyone's time, when we can just read the archives?

I think enough time has passed that gauging the sentiment of today is valid and worthwhile, especially if it has shifted (and we cannot know without asking).

I don't think "sentiment" is something we should place value on. As I said in my last e-mail, we should be weighing the merit of the arguments for and against, not the people who are making them. I don't see value in repeating the same arguments every X months or years, like appointing a different jury to try the same case. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]