Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47971&edit=1
ID: 47971
Comment by: phpmpan at mpan dot pl
Reported by: cscott at ggot dot org
Summary: Allow 'static' keyword to be applied to entire
classes
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package: Class/Object related
Operating System: *
PHP Version: *
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
One note:
PHP allows calling static methods on class instances and this actually works
faster* than pure static call. Compare:
for (... many times ...) {
UtilityClass::staticMethod();
}
vs
$instance = new UtilityClass();
for (... many times ...) {
$instance->staticMethod();
}
Creating an instance of a utility class is a neat optimization in heavy loops.
Do not consider me an advocate of premature optimization, but if g*to was
introduced in PHP because generated code may benefit from it, ability to create
instances of utility classes should not be prohibited for the same reason. If
OP's proposition is implemented, people will flock to it, effectively blocking
ability to use the described solution.
____
* 25% less time consumed; tests were performed about a year ago
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-10-26 16:09:57] dagguh at gmail dot com
What you are referring to is a utility class.
It only has static members and a private constructor, which should never be
called (even from the class itself).
Your suggestion could be useful, because implementing private empty
constructors
is just boilerplate code.
PS. Some people even throw an exception inside the private constructor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-10-31 00:27:53] cscott at ggot dot org
For Relevancy: I do not believe that namespaces solve this problem, as
__autoload does not work with namespaces (and, for obvious reasons,
shouldn't).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-04-14 21:07:14] cscott at ggot dot org
Description:
------------
Fairly simple: A developer is allowed to define his/her classes as abstract or
final, but not as static. For continuity's sake, it would be preferable to be
able to declare classes as static as well. This would greatly ease the
creation of static function collections/libraries, especially those included
with __autoload().
When a class is declared as abstract, it is a statement at the open that this
is an incomplete member; you can specify any method inside a class to be
abstract and the class is effectively abstract, yet this keyword is allowed in
the class declaration.
When a class is declared final, it is a statement at the open that all members
are to be considered final, and that this class should not be extended any
further.
By allowing classes to be declared as static, it would follow with allowing
"abstract class foo" in the sense that the keyword reflects the contents of the
class, and would follow with "final class foo" in that it would define a
binding construct for all members of the class.
Whether
a) In a static class, all methods and members are automatically static
-OR-
b) In a static class, all methods and members must be declared static
Is surely not for me to decide -- either is useful, as it either forces me to
ensure all members are static, or it does the legwork for me. As such, I make
no suggestion and defer to the wisdom of the developer(s).
Thank you for your consideration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47971&edit=1
