> I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class To recap my opinion from the other thread: I generally support the idea to have a label to slap on all-static classes, to make that contract more explicit. The goal is not to promote a specific use of the language, but to add clarity to what already exists.
Since my last response on the other thread, I warmed up more to namespaced floating functions, thanks Larry :) At the same time I don't see static methods and all-static classes fully going away soon, so I still support them having a label. But... > Why is it a class-level flag and not an attribute (similar to the > `#[Override]` attribute in PHP 8.3) ? I don't know that it needs to be a language keyword. An attribute would be ok for me, or even just a doc tag with phpstan. In fact maybe a feature request with phpstan could be a starting point. > One question our razor cannot answer is whether static member declarations > still require the static keyword in a static class. Marking a class readonly > makes marking properties with the same optional, thus one might argue static > should follow suit. However, I opine it should not. Unlike readonly, which > typically applies to properties declared near the head of the class (by > convention) where the same mark is also applied, static members appear > throughout the full length of the class body. That is, it should be apparent > when jumping anywhere into a static class that its members are static, > without having to check the class declaration. I prefer that the static keyword be required on the members. This supports the common use case of incremental refactoring, where methods are moved from one class to another, or a git merge where one branch adds the class-level static keyword, while another commit adds another method. > We cannot remove features from a static class that would otherwise be present > in a standard class. I think I get the intent of this statement, but I don't really vibe with the wording. I would say we should limit the scope of a modifier keyword to its essence. And we should not remove features that are already being used in classes that would naturally qualify for the class-level static modifier.
