On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Davey Shafik <m...@daveyshafik.com> wrote:
> Hi internals, > > In the nullable types we do not allow implicit return null/return with no > value to fulfill a nullable type. > > - No return will result in a TypeError when executed > - Return with no value will be an actual fatal error, which I believe is > due to the fact it's not found at runtime, should be a TypeError or > ParseError if possible? > - Return explicit null is fine (as expected) > > See: https://3v4l.org/h6IYF > > I believe the first two are contrary to PHP's "null is always returned if > nothing else is". > > OTOH, it makes sense as it's the entire reasoning behind return void vs > return null. > > This behavior is completely undocumented in the RFC. > > It's definitely something we should make an explicit decision on for the > language spec if nothing else. > > We should also make any decisions on this prior to beta3 in < 2 weeks. > > Thoughts? > > - Davey > hello_2 looks particularly fishy to me; to my knowledge we did not pass any RFCs that would dictate such a message. However I have not been as active as I'd like to be so perhaps I just missed it.
