On 03.01.2023 at 10:48, Philip Hofstetter wrote: > `DateTimeImmutable::modify()` is documented as returning > `DateTimeImmutable`, but it seems to actually be more specifically > returning `static`: > > https://3v4l.org/j9ZSo > > Now I'm wondering whether this is a documentation issue (where it > should return `static|false` and has not been updated to account for > that return type's availability yet) or whether this is a language > issue and the method is supposed to be returning `DateTimeImmutable` > instead, though that's probably a considerable BC break.
It is not recommendable to extend DateTime(Immutable); these classes have not been designed for that; for instance (and that may actually be the only issue), __construct() is not called (<https://3v4l.org/4Y7jU>). Of course, we cannot easily make them final, but I don't think we should encourage users to subclass by documenting return types as static – besides that the current return type is not wrong (it's just not as specific as it could be). > If you agree that it's a doc bug, I'll submit a PR. As of PHP 8.0.0, the single-source-of-truth regarding the signatures are the stub files[1]. The signatures in the PHP manual can be automatically generated from these. Therefore the stubs would need to be changed (first). [1] <https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/ext/date/php_date.stub.php> -- Christoph M. Becker -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
