On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 12:55, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Le 5 avr. 2020 à 16:01, Gabriel Caruso <carusogabrie...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > Hello, internals. > > Hereby you can find the RFC Document that I want to discuss as suggested > via https://externals.io/message/109416 and > https://externals.io/message/107990: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/magic-methods-signature > > Best regards, > > -- Gabriel Caruso > > > Hi, > Hello Claude, > > Regarding __construct(), etc. Since those methods are not supposed to > return anything, they ought to accept the `void` return pseudo-type in > their signature, which means exactly that: “do not return anything”. I > consider that the current behaviour (i.e., not accepting the `: void` > signature) as a bug, and was very surprised when I stumbled on it. > > I'll add to the RFC adding the possibility of typing the `__construct()` as `: void` as one of the changes. > ------------ > > Also, I raise the following question: > > Should omitted types be added implicitly? I.e., if I write: `function > __toString() { }` should the compiler interpret it as `function > __toString(): string { }` ? (Currently, it is not the case.) > > Doing so would raise BC concerns for some, uh, creative uses of magic > methods. On the other hand, that may help to add progressively type > informations on magic methods, since there is no need to synchronise > manually classes and subclasses (the compiler would do it automatically for > you). Concrete example here: https://3v4l.org/hTMvA > > This RFC does not cover analyzing the return of magic methods nor adding simplicity types. I'll add a note about it in the RFC. > —Claude > Thanks!
