Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110598
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANeKSiR18yf7modMbr5ZB5XSe6a3MKwurdZeq9L2g3X=OpUYSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaMLx4XXmzCbfm-O-qoKxS9GA5FsN44H9vgHAzJ09L66mtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVH2RdPStkW8DsEYBCANT2KrE2_QKUFQy4+ZQRg4-1q3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeKSiR=cD=J1eot5SmXWVqq-PC6mPjBg9im26WZBMM1hwGj1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuTuWiAMgBr=1o_O1oAOi2cwLBBCXeAbFpNGNk4SMcHYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeKSiTiyv7=CpUvKNzGmk5dZO_9WTGEpbTfYcATM1_J9U75yw@mail.gmail.com> <41a79208-f165-451c-4815-60daa432286f@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <41a79208-f165-451c-4815-60daa432286f@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:42:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CANeKSiTpgavyi3yPE3ouSQZgt6=2Wh8FVFQXpDUA8NXn+JnWcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>, 
	"G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f20c005a8348fc2"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Allow void return type for constructors/destructors
From: benas.molis.iml@gmail.com (Benas IML)

--0000000000001f20c005a8348fc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Nope, that isn't changing.

I simply wanted to point out that this RFC is proposing to allow to declare
constructor return type as `: void`, but not as `: mixed`.

The entire RFC is just a matter of cosmetic addition allowing to add `:
void` to constructors/destructors (for those that want to).

It seems that I will have to rewrite the BC section to be more clear on
that.

Best regards,
Benas

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 5:36 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 16.06.2020 at 16:19, Benas IML wrote:
>
> > I meant something like this:
> > ```
> > <?php
> > class Test {
> >     public function __construct() {}
> > }
> >
> > class Test2 extends Test {
> >     /* this is legal */
> >     public function __construct(): void {}
> > }
> >
> > class Test3 extends Test {
> >     /*
> >      * this is illegal, even though no
> >      * return type means mixed|void
> >      */
> >     public function __construct(): mixed {}
> > }
> >
> > class Test4 extends Test2 {
> >     /*
> >      * this is legal, even though we are
> >      * widening void type to mixed|void
> >      * but LSP checks don't apply to
> >      * constructors and destructors
> >      */
> >     public function __construct() {}
> > }
> > ```
>
> Currently, constructors are exempt from LSP checks[1]; are you planning
> to change that?
>
> [1] <https://3v4l.org/PeDCY>
>
> --
> Christoph M. Becker
>

--0000000000001f20c005a8348fc2--