On 19/06/2024 19:25, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Hi
On 6/19/24 16:03, Erick de Azevedo Lima wrote:
I have considered some names, actually. I just chose this one for the
implementation because
I tried to design it to be as close as possible to the C# implementation
and they call it "static constructor".
But the name can be changed to another one without any problem at all.
I would suggest `__constructStatic()`. This matches the existing
naming pattern of `__callStatic()` being the companion to `__call()`.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Why can't it just be `public static function __construct()`?
Cheers,
Bilge
