Re: [RFC] Abstract final classes

guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote on 27/11/2014 15:34:

This is true of classes intended to be static whether or not they are final. Allowing a "static class" would allow you to enforce that all methods (and properties) must be static without banning users from extending it (which is a completely orthogonal decision). So if I still want to not allow anyone to extend it, I would then have a final static class. Remember, I don't want people to change methods' visibility.

Yep, that's the idea. I see no reason, particularly with Late Static Binding, that it shouldn't be possible to have a static class which can be extended by a static sub-class, if that fits a particular use case.