> Le 3 déc. 2022 à 19:28, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> a écrit : > > I also clarified that static properties are explicitly not supported with > a-viz.
This is a serious issue, not necessarily because it is of great value, but because it introduces an unexpected asymmetry between static and non-static properties. In other words, from a user point-of-view, it is expected that staticness is orthogonal to visibility. Therefore, I would expect that the RFC has a dedicated section about static properties (as it has already one about [un]typed properties), not just a small sentence in the intro that could be overlooked. > and as it's of limited value we're not going to bother. Whether it’s of limited value or not, depends, I suppose, of coding style. Personally, I use static properties for various good and bad reasons, and some of them would be happy to take advantage of asymmetric visibility. E.g.: * I may store settings that concern the whole class (and that I cannot or want not register as constants) in static properties; * My typical implementation of “monostate pattern” is not: `Foo::getInstance()->bar()`, `Foo::getInstance()->baz`, but: `Foo::bar()`, `Foo::$baz`; * ... Of course, I would accept the reason “it is difficult to implement”, but not the excuse “it is almost worthless”. —Claude
