Hey Christian,
Wrong wording, sorry! :)
> But I definitely wouldn't want a deprecation warning for constructors without
> explicit ': void' as I see no reason to force people to use it.
This RFC proposes 2 things:
1) If a non-void value is returned from a constructor/destructor, a
deprecation warning is thrown. Meanwhile, in PHP 9.0 a fatal error is
thrown instead.
2) It will be allowed to declare constructors/destructors explicitly
as `: void` (previously this was illegal).
Best regards,
Benas
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 16:36, Christian Schneider <cschn...@cschneid.com> wrote:
>
> Am 17.06.2020 um 13:59 schrieb Benas IML <benas.molis....@gmail.com>:
> > We should allow newer codebases to enforce `void` rules on
> > constructors/destructors by allowing to explicitly declare return type as
> > `void`.
>
> I don't see a big benefit in this explicit return type void as newer
> codebases hopefully will try to get rid of deprecation warnings and thus
> fixing it but if you think this is helpful then I'll shut up :-)
>
> > Meanwhile, we should throw a deprecation warning, if the
> > constructor/destructor is
> > returning a non-void value and doesn't have an explicit `: void`
> > declaration.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the second part "and doesn't have an explicit `:
> void` declaration".
> If there is a ' : void' declaration then returning any value will be an error.
> As far as I can see this is already the case:
> php -r 'class A { function __construct() : void { return 42; } }'
> with PHP 7.4 gives
> PHP Fatal error: A void function must not return a value in Command
> line code on line 1
>
> But I definitely wouldn't want a deprecation warning for constructors without
> explicit ': void' as I see no reason to force people to use it.
>
> > Then, presumably in PHP 9, in addition to explicit `: void`, also enforce
> > `void` rules implicitly
> > altogether.
>
> Yes, that's how I would do it.
>
> - Chris
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
