Hi Benas, Overall, I'm very much in favour of disallowing returning a value from constructors. However, I think the RFC should deal with the return value and the signature validation in the same time, so that we can vote about both, since introducing the latter check is not just a bug fix, it's a substantial change IMO.
What I would like to avoid for sure is that the void return type is not actually enforced. (Offtopic: It seems that the magic method signature RFC exactly does this, and I'm not happy about it. I'd welcome an amendment RFC to fix the new inconsistencies). Furthermore, I personally also like the concept of an explicit return type declaration for constructors, but Nikita's earlier argument against (that most languages forbid the explicit return type) makes me think. Anyhow, this counterargument might be worth to add to the RFC. And regarding the last section of the RFC (Backward Incompatible Changes), I'm not exactly sure what you mean there, but since constructors are exempt to LSP validation, I think it's ok if a child class overrides the parent constructor with a widened return type. Regards, Máté
