On 17/06/2024 13:49, Bilge wrote:
On 16/06/2024 14:32, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Not supporting all features used in the wild would result in
developers not being able to use static classes for new and/or
refactored code if they believe they need those excluded
features. This would stop developers from signaling their intent
to readers of their code and would stop developers from being
able to rely on reflection to discern static classes for new
and/or refactored code when that otherwise could have been possible.
Disabling existing features just for static classes would result
in creating two forms of static classes — explicit and implicit —
and that IMO would be a miss for the addition of static classes.
You wrote the perfect words. Even if I do not agree with all of your
six conclusions following, I agree with this preface 100%, to such an
extent that I think it should form the underpinning basis for all
further decisions on this RFC and be enshrined in the preamble of said
RFC, if indeed I ever acquire such permissions as are necessary to
actually write it.
The idea of "implicit" versus "explicit" static classes is a clear and
powerful one that I think we can all understand, such that a
successful RFC would collapse this distinction; any failure to do so
would undermine the value of the feature entirely. As a concrete
example, then, prohibiting state in a static class is now completely
off the table simply because regular classes already support this
feature. Whilst some people have talked about idealogical aspirations
for this feature which sound valid in a vacuum, we must primarily
concern ourselves with the fact that this feature is being introduced
into an existing language, not a brand new language where such ideals
would have merit. And that is why this statement is so powerful: most
(but perhaps not all) of the answers to these disputed questions
follow naturally from the clear and guiding principle of this preface.
Thank you so much, Mike, for this! I feel confident I can write this
RFC now, and with help from Lanre, we already have the beginnings of
an implementation, too!
Cheers,
Bilge
Furthermore, for absolute clarity and the avoidance of doubt, I believe
this guiding principle can be enshrined on the following single sentence:
"We cannot remove features from a static class that would otherwise
be present in a standard class."
I believe following this principle we will arrive at the best
implementation of static classes.
Cheers,
Bilge
