wrote in message
news:549c4634-ac38-41d3-ab43-f816a9f2b...@fleshgrinder.com...
On 11/12/2017 12:44 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Yes, Dart has a different understanding of const, which is exactly why I
posted it for you guys. In the hope that it helps to get more different
views on the topic. Currently you are too concentrated on how it is
implemented in PHP at this time, and argue that it is impossible to
diverge from that path. Which is simply not true, we only have to ensure
backwards compatibility.
I am not arguing it's impossible, I am arguing it is not a good idea. We
have the concept of constants in this language, and bolting on it a
completely different concept from different language, which by
coincidence was named with the same term, would only be a source of
confusion. If we wanted immutable objects in language - which I am not
convinced at all we do, but assuming for a minute we did - there's no
reason to conflate them with constants as we have them now. These are
different things.
I did not mean to say that we have to have everything exactly as Dart
has it. I just wanted to show, that the meaning of const as we have is
not universally the same.
Abstract constants would also only be truly useful if we could define
the type as well on them. Which is currently not possible. Also, I am
not saying that the requested feature MUST be done with const. However,
it should behave like one, which is impossible with methods.
Just because some languages use a corrupt definition of "constant" is no
reason for PHP to do the same. A constant has a value which, once defined,
cannot be changed. It is not logical to define a constant name in one place
and its value in another.
--
Tony Marston
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
