I very much like this — though I would say it was dependent on the nullable
types RFC (like splat and variadics were codependent).
While I would like to see the introduction of a void type, I understand and
respect the limitations on the RFC.
However, one thing that I do think is missing, is the equivalent of Hacks
`$this` return type. You have `self` and `parent`, but I think without a
`static` equivalent you can break things:
class foo {
static public function instanceOf(): self {
return new static();
}
}
class bar extends foo { }
foo::instanceOf(); // new foo, this is fine, returns `self`.
bar::instanceOf(); // new bar, no longer `self`
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Levi Morrison <levi_morri...@byu.edu>
wrote:
> Dear Internals,
>
> I finally have a working implementation for return types RFC[1] built
> on top of master. There are a few notes in the PR[2] about the
> implementation. I invite you all to review the PR and provide
> feedback.
>
> This means that I will soon move the return types RFC to voting phase.
> If you have not yet had time to review the RFC recently I invite you
> to do so now.
>
> The RFC has been slightly altered since the last discussion:
> - The RFC now targets PHP 7 (previously PHP 5.7).
> - There is a new section about disallowing return types on certain
> methods[4].
> - The design and accompanying section of reflection[3] has been
> rewritten entirely.
>
> Regardless of the result of the RFC, I want to thank the many people
> who have been helpful to me as I have learned php-src and iterated
> over this RFC.
>
> [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting
> [2]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/820
> [3]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting#reflection
> [4]:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting#methods_which_cannot_declare_return_types
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
