-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2/19/2016 8:47 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
> I don't agree. The HHVM approach of allowing a trait to indicate
> the a utilizing class MUST implement an interface is, in my
> opinion, not a good thing. It allows the trait to force a utilizing
> class t
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:42 PM Fleshgrinder wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 2/19/2016 8:34 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
> > My comments above, however, were more in relation to the HHVM
> > notion of "requires implement interface" which I don't think either
> > propo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2/19/2016 8:34 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
> My comments above, however, were more in relation to the HHVM
> notion of "requires implement interface" which I don't think either
> proposal does.
>
I cannot vote but I would like to repeat that the HHV
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:13 PM Kevin Gessner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov
>> wrote:
>>
> HHVM already supports "trait Foo implements Iface" with the semantics that
>>> the interface is also implemented by the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> HHVM already supports "trait Foo implements Iface" with the semantics that
>> the interface is also implemented by the using class.
>>
>> Additionally HHVM supports a notion of "re
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
>
> > Hello internals team! I'd like to propose an RFC to allow traits to
> > implement interfaces.
> >
> > I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait
> provides
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2/18/2016 7:28 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> Without given an opinion on the RFC itself, this might be
> interesting for context:
>
> http://hhvm.com/blog/9581/trait-and-interface-requirements-in-hack
>
> HHVM already supports "trait Foo implemen
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> Hello internals team! I'd like to propose an RFC to allow traits to
> implement interfaces.
>
> I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait provides
> a common implementation of an interface. Classes that use the tra
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> > I don't think there is enough benefit from allowing traits to declare
> > interfaces, but not propagating the interface out to classes that insert
> the
> > trait. It does provide
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>
>> I want to add my personal experience with traits: every time I create
>> a trait it is to implement an interface. Here is a publicly available
>> [example with
>> OuterIterator](h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2/17/2016 9:01 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
>
> I'm not clear on the motivation for this principle. Is there
> anything I could read up about explicit vs implicit in PHP design?
>
This is not so much about implicit vs. explicit PHP design for me.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> I agree with the others having a class implementing the interface
> automatically just because a trait implements it is not a good idea.
> The class should always decide on its own if it wants to implement an
> interface or not.
>
I'm not cl
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> I want to add my personal experience with traits: every time I create
> a trait it is to implement an interface. Here is a publicly available
> [example with OuterIterator](
> https://github.com/morrisonlevi/Ardent/blob/master/src/Collectio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2/17/2016 3:25 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait
> provides a common implementation of an interface. Classes that use
> the trait are required to also explicitly declare the interface to
Hi Kevin,
Hi all,
On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 09:25 -0500, Kevin Gessner wrote:
>
> I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait
> provides a common implementation of an interface. Classes that use
> the trait are required to also explicitly declare the interface to
> benefit.
Hello,
On 17.02.16 15:25, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait provides
> a common implementation of an interface. Classes that use the trait are
> required to also explicitly declare the interface to benefit. I propose
> that traits be permit
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> Hello internals team! I'd like to propose an RFC to allow traits to
> implement interfaces.
>
> I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait provides
> a common implementation of an interface. Classes that use the trai
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sebastian Bergmann
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 tha
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 tra
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.
20 matches
Mail list logo
