Hi Erick, śr., 19 cze 2024 o 14:35 Erick de Azevedo Lima <ericklima.c...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello everybody. > > I found myself wanting this feature (that I first encountered when > programming in C#) for removing a workaround from a codebase I work from > time to time. > I searched internals and found a discussion from almost a decade ago. That > discussion did not end well, mostly because of insulting accusations. > I then decided to do some research on this subject and found out that it's > a pretty common feature in other OOP languages. > Also, as I started studying the php-src (and missed the days when I used > to program in C in my main job), I decided to do an implementation myself > even before presenting the RFC. > The implementation link can also be found at the RFC. > > You can read the RFC here: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_constructor > > Regards, > > Erick > I like the idea of having a static initializer. I think we could propose a better naming, method name `function __staticConstructor` is a concatenation of the words static and constructor while constructor is used as an initializer when building constructing objects. Have you considered naming it for example shortly `function __static()` ? It is somehow similar to https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_constructor#java in static-block. Cheers, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski
