wt., 16 cze 2020 o 09:50 Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:59 AM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > Given that there appears to be some appetite to reduce checks for
> > inappropriate signatures[1] I am wondering if anyone has strong opinions
> —
> > pro or con — on removing checks for static methods?
> >
> > My primary use-case where I would like to see checked relaxed is for
> > static methods used as factory methods[2].
> >
> > Per [3] it seems that all but the least upvoted answer argues that LSP
> > applies to instances, not static methods.
> >
> > Per [4] it seems that all upvoted answers agree that constructors should
> > not be constrained by LSP, and since a factory method is a form of a
> > constructor it would seem that if constructors do not require LSP then
> > factory methods would not either.
> >
> > Does anyone see any issues with relaxing these checks for static methods
> > that would have them downvote an RFC on the topic?
> >
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> The problem here is that static methods signatures are subject to LSP if
> they are used in conjunction with late static binding (LSB):
>
> class A {
> public static function test() {
> static::method();
> // May call A::method(), B::method() or any child.
> // Signature must match for this to be sensible!
> }
> }
> class B extends A {
> }
>
> I do agree that the current situation is sub-optimal, because certainly not
> all static methods actually are used with LSB. But we do not presently
> distinguish these cases.
>
> If that problem can be addressed in some way, then I agree that (non-LSB)
> static methods should be exempt from LSP, just like constructors are.
>
In that case maybe a core annotation like "Override" to relax checks ??
That way it'd say explicitly that it was intentional override.
Cheers,
Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
