Ok... so if I update the RFC to be "static class", does that make everybody happy? I mainly wanna get this forward thinking trend... =)
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote on 27/11/2014 15:34: > >> > This is true of classes intended to be static whether or not they are >> final. Allowing a "static class" would allow you to >> > enforce that all methods (and properties) must be static without >> banning users from extending it (which is a completely >> > orthogonal decision). >> >> So if I still want to not allow anyone to extend it, I would then have a >> final static class. Remember, I don't want people to change methods' >> visibility. >> > > Yep, that's the idea. I see no reason, particularly with Late Static > Binding, that it shouldn't be possible to have a static class which can be > extended by a static sub-class, if that fits a particular use case. > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Guilherme Blanco MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com GTalk: guilhermeblanco Toronto - ON/Canada
