On Sat, Jun 15, 2024, at 9:40 AM, Bilge wrote:
> On 15/06/2024 14:53, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>> On 15/06/2024 12:16, Bilge wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to introduce the `static` keyword at the class declaration
>>> level. That is, the following would be valid: `static class Foo {}`.
>>
>>
>> This has been proposed before, and was rejected at vote. It was nearly
>> 10 years ago, so opinions may have changed, but it would be worth
>> reading through the prior discussion to anticipate or counter the
>> objections raised, and avoid re-treading the same ground.
>>
>> - RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class
>> - Pre-vote discussion threads: https://externals.io/message/79211 and
>> https://externals.io/message/79338
>> - Final vote thread: https://externals.io/message/79601
>>
>> Searching my list archive, I find that it came up again a few months
>> ago, which I'd entirely forgotten: https://externals.io/message/121717
>>
>> Slightly tangential, but some of the same discussion also came up on
>> these rather lengthy threads about "static class constructors":
>> https://externals.io/message/84602 and https://externals.io/message/85779
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
> Hi Rowan,
>
> That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the
> idea was rejected, other than people didn't like "abstract final" as the
> syntax (thank God). As for why "static" was rejected, as stated, I don't
> get a good sense of it at all, but rather than fall back on the opinions
> of many who are mostly absent among those polled nine years ago, I'd
> rather get a sense of the current sentiment of those present today.
>
> Cheers,
> Bilge
Please see my comments in the thread from just a few months ago that Rowan
linked. I still stand by every one of them, and absolutely oppose "all static"
classes, unequivocally for the reasons stated.
Consider this comment a shorthand for copy-pasting my previous posts to this
thread. :-)
--Larry Garfield
