2014-11-04 9:51 GMT-08:00 Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>: > Hi! > > > I thought it was inconsistent, but after discussions on > > StackOverflow, I don't think it actually is. > > If you specify the type once as "Foo something" and once as "something: > Foo" then I don't see how there's even a place for discussions that it's > inconsistent. > > > Return types describe the return type of a function, not the type of > > a function. > > Given that in PHP functions do not have types, not being objects of the > language, this seems to be argument invented just to ignore the > inconsistency. > > Moreover, in languages where functions do have types - e.g. ML for > example - the return of the function is specified in exactly the same > manner as parameter type, and type of the function itself is never > specified explicitly, but if needed, it is referred to with different > syntax (->). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML > > Same situation with ActionScript: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript > both parameters and return type use ":" and nobody thinks that specifies > type of the function - as, again, nobody ever specifies type of the > function as such. In fact, I can remember no language that would specify > type of the function (as opposed to parameters + returns) when declaring > a function, even among languages with first class functions. > > Haskell does:
length :: [a] -> Int length [] = 0 length (_:xs) = 1 + length xs > > Also, it's worth bearing in mind that `public Foo function` was > > rejected previously. > > Many things were rejected previously, but the RFC does not bring any > argument about it and never even mentions it as far as I can see. > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
