I agree. with Sebastian. I'm personally a big fan of using traits as the implementation mechanism for interfaces (i.e. implement the interfaces methods in a trait, then use that trait in a class that implements the interface), but I don't think there is anything positive to gain from having the trait actually implement the interface.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:34 AM Sebastian Bergmann <sebast...@php.net> wrote: > Am 17.02.2016 um 15:25 schrieb Kevin Gessner: > > Hello internals team! I'd like to propose an RFC to allow traits to > > implement interfaces. > > I think that would violate "The Flattening Property" [1], meaning > that the fact that a class uses a trait must not be noticable by a > user of that class. > > Also bear in mind that explicit is better than implicit. Two > explicit declarations, "implements <interface>" and "uses <trait>", > makes it obvious from looking at the code of a class that is > provides a specific API and uses a trait for its implementation. > > Exactly. Not to mention that interfaces are "types" (i.e. $object instanceof MyInterface will be true if $object is an instance of a class that implements MyInterface) while traits are not. By moving the "implements MyInterface" into the trait, you "hide" and important attribute of the class that should be obvious and explicit. > -- > [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- -- Chase chasepee...@gmail.com
