Hi
On 6/28/24 21:29, Bilge wrote:
I'm already leaning towards "Don't want static classes"
Why? It is important to understand what your misgiving are in case there
anything we can do to assuage them.
I don't see value in being able to explicitly mark a class as `static`
for the reasons that have already been brought forward by other
participants (such as Larry).
But more importantly, the RFC and discussion so far don't really
convince me that any of the participants in favor of static classes
really know what they want and thought about *all* the implications of that.
I strongly favor an opinionated RFC where the RFC author did their
research and makes it clear why the proposal is the right choice and
backs this up by proper arguments. Of course this doesn't mean that the
RFC author should not listen to the list discussion, but the high level
details should be clear right from the beginning. As of now the RFC
still has some open questions regarding "core functionality" and even
intents to leave them as a secondary vote.
In other words, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Given the upcoming feature freeze, the current list volume and core
folks being busy with finishing up and polishing their own RFCs for PHP
8.4, the timing doesn't really help getting the necessary attention
towards your RFC either. I might be more receptive towards a quieter
period of the year, where I can take the time to really think about the
RFC, like I do for other RFCs as well. My earlier responses towards the
Lazy Objects RFC might be a good example towards the level of detail I
try to give RFCs. Even when I don't personally understand them or don't
see myself using them (yet), I want a best-possible result that will not
cause sadness 3 years down the road.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
