On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Johannes Schlüter <johan...@schlueters.de>wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 16:40 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > I think that the return typehints a bit easier topic than the input type > > hinting(for scalars), because that affects the caller, while return type > > hinting is more contained: you write the function, you put the return > > typehint there, if the method tries to return something else, then your > > code is at fault. > > So even if we would allow return typehints for scalars that would only > > affects those functions where the developer opts-in. > > So a function author doesn't trust himself and therefore we change the > language syntax? > > johannes > > or not trusting the subsystem that he/she calls, and he/she wants to make a hard promise about the return value. I could also mention, that this feature could be used in static analysis and IDEs(albeit most IDEs out there already supports docblocks). I'm not saying that this feature is a must, I just wanted to emphasize that it is a little bit less touchy subject than the (scalar) input typehints. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
