On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:13 PM Kevin Gessner <kgess...@etsy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepee...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> >> 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 "require implements Iface" which >>> means that the using class must implement this interface. >>> >> > This was mentioned in the original traits RFC, but never got voted or > implemented: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse#requiring_composing_class_to_implement_interface > > It's orthogonal to this RFC. > > >> >>> Why should it matter if the class using the trait actually implements >> the interface? If the person just wants the functionality, but, for >> whatever reason, doesn't want to actually implement the interface, why >> should it matter? >> >> I think the trait should HELP the person implementing an interface. The >> trait should be able to say (whether via comments or an engine enforceable >> construct) "Hey, I've done everything needed for you to implement this >> interface" but, at no time, should the trait force the class utilizing it >> to interact (via extend or implement or use) a 3rd artifact. >> >> trait foo implements myinterface {} >> class bar { use foo;} >> class baz implements myinterface { use foo;} >> >> Both of the above should be legal, and $myBar instanceof myinterface >> should return false; >> > > This is Proposal 1 in the new draft of my RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits-with-interfaces > > Does that proposal sound like what you'd want? > > I don't really have any objections to proposal 1. Part of me would still like to see a different keyword used, but I don't think that's a huge deal. I think the important part is not propagating the implementation (proposal 2). My comments above, however, were more in relation to the HHVM notion of "requires implement interface" which I don't think either proposal does. > Cheers > -- Kevin > >> -- -- Chase chasepee...@gmail.com
