nathansalter's avatar

Nathan Salter

nathansalter

Member since

35

Total Reputation

2

Total Arguments

3

Total Votes for Arguments

Arguments and votes

1

This seems like a solution to a design problem rather than a language problem. I feel like the specific examples aren't something that I've come across frequently enough to add to the language. If we're looking at a pure OOP perspective, Interfaces enforce behaviour. If you're also supplying the behaviour in cases where you don't expect there to always need to be an implementation that really smells like a poorly designed interface.

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods nathansalter avatar
nathansalter
voted no
1

This seems a lot better thought through than the original RFC. Although I'm not usually in favour of having two different ways of doing two similar things, in this case it makes readability better and covers cases which otherwise would have to use the more verbose function and use method.

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 nathansalter avatar
nathansalter
voted yes
75
  • Interface shall stay light, pure contracts defining expectations, else they are just abstract classes with multi-inheritance.
  • If multi-inheritance is the subject, a specific RFC shall be done on this.
  • An other away might be to dig back this RFC to add interface to traits: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/traits-with-interfaces
Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods victor avatar
victor
voted no
RSS Feed Contribute Watch on YouTube Our License
© 2024 RFC Vote. This project is open source. Contribute and collaborate with us!