Re: [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi! > To get a bit philosophical: Is it really the language's job to make > that decision? Is there a difference between "encouraging", > "allowing", and "enabling"? I think, yes on both. The PHP tradition is to allow doing stuff that may look weird (most languages won't allow you to do $$foo) but still there are practices that we encourage, especially in OO space, and some even that we enforce quite strictly (such as inheritance rules for methods). > Purely static classes are a reality whether this feature is added or > not. They do things namespaces can't (and probably shouldn't), but Of course, you can create class containing of only static members. The question is whether we need a language construct for ensuring that certain class has only static members. I'm not sure this requires a language-level construct. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com