Re: New RFC draft "static class constructor"
| From: | Levi Morrison | Date: | Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:24:25 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: New RFC draft "static class constructor" | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-85793@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Johannes Ott <mail@deroetzi.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> finally I managed to do my first RFC draft.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor
>
> I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to
> your feedback on it.
The static constructor cannot be called by the user, which means it
shouldn't even register as a function. Additionally, it is always
private. Given these constraints I would prefer to change this syntax:
class Config {
private static $arIni;
private static function __static() {
$self::$arIni = parse_ini_file('config.ini');
}
}
To this (borrowed from Java):
class Config {
private static $arIni;
static {
$self::$arIni = parse_ini_file('config.ini');
}
}
I do not see any reason to do the former unless the latter has
conflicts in the parser, which I don't think it would.