> I intentionally left `abstract` out of `public const bool CAN_FLY;` in the > `abstract class` for consistency with the implementation with `interface`, > which would also have to be `public const bool CAN_FLY;`. Currently > `abstract` is only used in front of methods `abstract function doThing(): > bool;`. Open to discussion - which way is ideal or preferred? That could be > included as a subset of an RFC vote if a consensus during discussion isn't > reached. >
I understand, but note that methods are implicitly abstract in an interface, but it must be explicit in an abstract class; and since I see the proposed feature mainly as a "replacement" for abstract static methods [whose all implementations just return a literal value]... (anyway, not super important)
