Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105066 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7492 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2019 03:52:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.25mail.st) (206.123.115.54) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2019 03:52:30 -0000 Received: from [10.0.1.62] (unknown [49.48.244.61]) by mail1.25mail.st (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 679D460494; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 00:47:53 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16E227) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:47:49 +0700 Cc: "G. P. B." , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <3144F5D1-1F18-4C42-9B3E-AF1B1E598E47@koalephant.com> References: <65AF9E1E-DFA6-47AE-952B-9ABEBD9B6038@gmail.com> <284d1f9f-03d3-1488-77dd-82e18edf9f4c@gmail.com> To: "M. W. Moe" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Question about adding !function_identifier From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay) > On 4 Apr 2019, at 03:29, M. W. Moe wrote: >=20 > Thanks! >=20 >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:24 PM G. P. B. wrote:= >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I don't really see the point of it as you self said this wouldn't add a >> runtime check, so in what is it different to a comment? >> More so reusing ! for this will, in my opinion, just lead to confusion as= >> people will think it negates the function, this is what >> I would expect it to do at first glance. >> Also comparing it to the nullable question mark is quite bizarre I find, >> why not choose the ampersand for references instead? >> At least it would cover the same "scope", as types have nothing to do wit= h >> how a function behaves. >>=20 >> Best regards >>=20 >> George P. Banyard >>=20 Quite honestly knowing that a function =E2=80=9Cthrows=E2=80=9D but not *wha= t* it throws, is useless.=20 Now if it were a proposal to add *runtime checked* `throws FooException, Bar= TypeError` or similar, I could get behind.=