Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108265
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c-vPOmHzjoDFNi3m+iTgfz6dJep1DAHuCFcQDctjeEJMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-vPOmHzjoDFNi3m+iTgfz6dJep1DAHuCFcQDctjeEJMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 12:24:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_tQKs3ni0HkdurP4i4P0X-hem0APCmzP0F9DrZBjro3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000118c4f059d1d5c53"
Subject: Re: [RFC] Static return type
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000118c4f059d1d5c53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> 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
>

Heads up: I plan to start voting on this RFC tomorrow.

I think most of the discussion here has been around the "$this" type
mentioned in future scope, but no particular concerns with "static" itself
have been raised. (I don't plan to include $this as part of this RFC.)

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000118c4f059d1d5c53--