On 08/07/2024 12:48, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 1:12 PM Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com>
wrote:
So really the question should be: why do you feel the need to
*disallow* a combination that has no technical issues, and works
already? If you're going to disallow abstract why not disallow any
class inheritance at all? Because that's what abstract relates to:
class hierarchy. Why remove some support but keep the rest?
The reason to remove abstract was because it was thought `static` means
the same as `abstract`. That is, neither can be instantiated. However,
clearly that is short-sighted as Alex's example proves. That is, we
cannot simply replace `abstract` with `static` because that precludes us
from having an incomplete definition where some methods are still not
yet implemented. As such, I am quite convinced by your arguments, and
will make the change to add `abstract` support back in; mainly because
removing abstract support defies our fundamental razor (it's something
we can already do).
If we support inheritance for static classes, we should allow static
on both interface and abstract classes.
What do you mean by /allow static on [...] interface/? Are you saying
you also expect to see `static interface` support? (This is something I
am absolutely not considering at this time, without a very good argument
in favour of).
Cheers,
Bilge
