Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi! > To get a bit philosophical: Is it really the language's job to make > that decision? Is there a difference between "encouraging", > "allowing", and "enabling"? I think, yes on both. The PHP tradition is to allow doing stuff that may look weird (most languages won't allow you to do $$foo) bu

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Yes, C# documented here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/79b3xss3.aspx On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Levi Morrison wrote: > Perhaps I have missed it in the noise, but have any other mainstream > languages (or new hipster ones; I don't care) have something > equivalent to the proposed s

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Perhaps I have missed it in the noise, but have any other mainstream languages (or new hipster ones; I don't care) have something equivalent to the proposed static classes? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

PR with this feature request: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/929 On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 1 December 2014 20:30:46 GMT, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > > The problem is that, well, global state is rarely a good thing, I don’t > think we should be encouraging it.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

On 1 December 2014 20:30:46 GMT, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > The problem is that, well, global state is rarely a good thing, I don’t think > we should be encouraging it. To get a bit philosophical: Is it really the language's job to make that decision? Is there a difference between "encouraging",

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

> On 1 Dec 2014, at 17:46, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > Hi! > >> (2) Add lexically-scoped variables, and allow normal global functions >> to be closures. By this I mean we add something like JavaScript’s >> `let` keyword that would make a variable that is unset when it falls >> out of scope (e

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi! > static class Foo { > function bar() { > echo do_something_with($this); > } > } > > Much nicer (and just as easy) for that to give a compile-time error of > "Static class Foo cannot contain non-static function bar" than for it to > autoload fine, and then give a less obvious

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

I'm working on a patch right now and I removed the implicit configuration of static to methods. It's only missing reflection magic. Should be out of the oven in one hour or less. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Lars Strojny wrote: > Hi Guilherme, hi Robert. > > > On 01 Dec 2014, at 14:58, Robert

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi Guilherme, hi Robert. > On 01 Dec 2014, at 14:58, Robert Stoll wrote: > > I am not sure what makes more sense for PHP, but just as thought-provoking > impulse, wouldn't it be better just to check that all methods are static and > __construct private instead of turning methods magically into

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi! > (2) Add lexically-scoped variables, and allow normal global functions > to be closures. By this I mean we add something like JavaScript’s > `let` keyword that would make a variable that is unset when it falls > out of scope (end of a {} block, end of a file etc.). Then, we allow > normal fun

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Levi Morrison wrote on 01/12/2014 17:58: The only thing missing is a standardised, enforced, annotation on the class to declare that you are using this ability and instances will never be created. Let's say a class has no members: what's the harm in instantiating it? Sure, it logically doesn't d

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Am 01.12.2014 17:37 schrieb "Rowan Collins" : > > guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote on 01/12/2014 15:27: > >> (1) Function/Namespaced function autoloading >> (2) State encapsulation >> (3) Function scoping > I would add (4) static polymorphism, which Late Static Binding explicitly supports. Amen!

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

> The only thing missing is a standardised, enforced, annotation on the class > to declare that you are using this ability and instances will never be > created. Let's say a class has no members: what's the harm in instantiating it? Sure, it logically doesn't do anything useful, but is this user e

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote on 01/12/2014 15:27: (1) Function/Namespaced function autoloading (2) State encapsulation (3) Function scoping I would add (4) static polymorphism, which Late Static Binding explicitly supports. But PHP is not one of these dogmatic “everything must be a class

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

> On 1 Dec 2014, at 16:12, Christoph Becker wrote: > > Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> Yes, they’re a simple addition, but I still think they’re the wrong >> solution to the problem. We shouldn’t force people to use classes for >> simple collections of functions. People have wanted function >> autolo

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Andrea Faulds wrote: > Yes, they’re a simple addition, but I still think they’re the wrong > solution to the problem. We shouldn’t force people to use classes for > simple collections of functions. People have wanted function > autoloading for years. I say it’s high time we add that. Maybe

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi! > On 1 Dec 2014, at 15:27, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > Thanks a lot for putting efforts thinking through this problem. > Indeed we have 3 problems that leads to "static classes". You detailed 2 of > them. > The third is around encapsulation. I may want functions that

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi Andrea, Thanks a lot for putting efforts thinking through this problem. Indeed we have 3 problems that leads to "static classes". You detailed 2 of them. The third is around encapsulation. I may want functions that are reused by other functions at the namespace level, but that shouldn't be used

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi all! > On 1 Dec 2014, at 13:58, Robert Stoll wrote: > > I read your updated RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class Hmm, I don’t like this new RFC either. Static classes in languages like C# exist because the language designers made the dogmatic decision to require everything

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static classes (Was Abstract final classes)

Hi Guilherme, I read your updated RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_final_class IMO the RFC as such makes sense now (abstract final confusion is eliminated. In addition to turn methods implicitly into static methods, the __construct of a static class should be implicitly private as well. I