Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108056 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62545 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2020 16:02:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 2020 16:02:00 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A02180533 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:07:41 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS11403 66.111.4.0/24 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:07:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1701721B24 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:07:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap26 ([10.202.2.76]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 09:07:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=6ULFZm BS/4AHiWDIS9qMsT2pWcLurkFW5PEFMbxPPag=; b=f9/25NE68Z41GIXbAENMw1 fxWGXUQf3IuSYa5PBJQ8SKze38m/xFmy/xAAXiprnsxj40oAK+swZ5RmsCBdkQH0 wQg3Y/Fic7+oF/SaYX20QdPPdvLA62bMb9CjQj6QJZwpZ4NCJZA8UgAK/blLnVIl qa+wRNmz/XQ6vSgwd9a8U6XDw7iwP+JfNXr54Iylfw59nqjv9bcnNxLPzOI3tnhj 04de6QAezxK74Tg/Hns9WcbjmiBBLiXBzkS7WlBFXNyV4OONAV4R+JMWdhjAdpGx yQ2cHMFvIegwLVEJe7hPuXAMo+y6eyE1QlqTnvn/RKfnZG8OJGovV5utIpgrMG5A == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdeiuddgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghr rhihucfirghrfhhivghlugdfuceolhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtoh hmqeenucffohhmrghinhepphhhphdrnhgvthenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep lhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8470814200A2; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:07:38 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-740-g7d9d84e-fmstable-20200109v1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:07:13 -0600 To: "php internals" Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static return type From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield") On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, at 5:42 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > I would like to propose the following RFC, which allows using "static" as a > return type: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_return_type > > While I'm personally not a fan of late static binding, we do support it and > people do use it quite heavily, so I think we should also support it in > return types. > > Regards, > Nikita Is "squee!" an appropriate response on the list? For interface authors this is a huge deal. --Larry Garfield