On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:08 -0500, Jeremy Privett wrote:
> > Sam Barrow wrote:
> > > I figured it out, the syntax is now as follows:
> > >
> > > function a($b, $c) returns d {
> > > }
> > >
> > > I'll post an update soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's certainly a non-intuitive syntax. How about we take a page out of
> > the book of other C-style languages before trying to invent something
> > else? I agree with Stas, "return" and "returns" are not part of a
> > function definition.
>
> I don't think it's non-intuitive at all, and even so, it's the most
> intuitive we have. This ordering makes more sense to me at first glance (in
> the order I would think about things; scope, name, arguments, return).
im not sure the following has been explicitly proposed, but how about
omitting the 'return' keyword and placing the return type hint before the
function identifier
function int a($b, $c) {}
i think that is most congruent with 'typical' of c style languages, no ?
-nathan
