Re: [RFC] Static Constructor
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
Thread (16 messages)