On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote: > Hi! > >> Except `static function()` and `static function foo()` already have >> meaning, and if we allowed static return types (very possible) that >> would be ambiguous. This syntax is a no-go. > > If it is possible, why it's not the part of the RFC? Probably because > there's not much place where it would make sense.
Actually it's because I don't have the time to verify that it wouldn't violate type rules and implement it. There is no other reason. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
