> Le 14 avr. 2020 à 18:53, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:07 PM Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com > <mailto:claude.pa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Le 14 avr. 2020 à 16:54, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com > > <mailto:nicolas.grekas%2b...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > > > I'm just not sold on allowing "void" on __construct, because the very > > concept of a return type on a constructor is ... void, and also because of > > the code style choices this will open (and the CS "wars" I mentioned). > > > > This issue is not specific to magic method like __construct(). It is the > whole concept of “void” as return type which is, say, “problematic”. > > In fact, “void” is not really a return type. It is a way to state that the > method is not supposed to return anything, which means, as you said very > well, that “the very concept of return type on [this method] is void”. > > That might be a reason to reject the concept of “void” as return type. Or to > revive https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance> > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance>> . But again, the issue is > orthogonal to the fact that this particular method is magic, and we should > not cherry-pick and reject the concept of “void” for __construct() and > similar magic methods only. > > Constructors not having a return type is standard behavior across most (all?) > languages. You can't specify a constructor return type in C++. You can't > specify one in C#. You can't specify one in Java. Off-hand, I can't name a > language that both has a first-class constructor concept (Rust's "new" idiom > does not count) and specifies a return type on it. > > It would naturally follow that, yes, you can't specify a constructor return > type in PHP either, just like we enforce right now. Unless we have some > strong reason to deviate from standard behavior that I do not see? > > Regards, > Nikita
Do those languages allow to return something from the constructor (as does PHP currently)? because I’m more interested in the semantics of `: void` than the exact way to have it. —Claude
