Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110628
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANeKSiR18yf7modMbr5ZB5XSe6a3MKwurdZeq9L2g3X=OpUYSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeKSiTikOJGcsGYgqYKJ9RCHpyyhyD66D7N2YRFGRHcqL7v0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <8ADA2EC7-EE07-4429-8F84-1E5ADC7660E6@cschneid.com> <CAF+90c8Pqc03ahWcQ+Wz2NAPh2xLd+LoB9haGAvHSR+k++9MhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xXm1mc+w=4P2duh-HzMroYdV-1edZyioZfWY00+ee+oHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xXm1mc+w=4P2duh-HzMroYdV-1edZyioZfWY00+ee+oHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:59:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CANeKSiQxhBMY1bD0t4VUotG7Wh01p==xAhEm9Vfb3c6JvLFseQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Allow void return type for constructors/destructors
From: benas.molis.iml@gmail.com (Benas IML)

Thanks everybody for the replies.

> However, I am also fine if the void return value is only enforced when th=
e void return
> type is declared. Additionally, we could emit a deprecation notice/warnin=
g when
> there is no return type declaration, but a value is returned. I think thi=
s would be
> a nice way to immediately give people the possibility to disallow a retur=
n value,
> while being respectful for older code bases.

Completely agreed. I'll update the RFC to reflect this as well.

We should allow newer codebases to enforce `void` rules on
constructors/destructors
by allowing to explicitly declare return type as `void`.

Meanwhile, we should throw a deprecation warning, if the
constructor/destructor is
returning a non-void value and doesn't have an explicit `: void`
declaration. Then,
presumably in PHP 9, in addition to explicit `: void`, also enforce
`void` rules implicitly
altogether.

Best regards,
Benas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 11:31, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>>
>> This PR should also address all of M=C3=A1t=C3=A9's concerns since it ma=
kes
>> constructors and destructors always return `void` (even when no explicit
>> `void` return type is specified).
>
>
> To be clear, my main concern was that declaring a void return type should=
n't be
> allowed, unless it's actually enforced. Now, it's all fine because you st=
ated your
> intentions :)
>
> However, I am also fine if the void return value is only enforced when th=
e void return
> type is declared. Additionally, we could emit a deprecation notice/warnin=
g when
> there is no return type declaration, but a value is returned. I think thi=
s would be
> a nice way to immediately give people the possibility to disallow a retur=
n value,
> while being respectful for older code bases.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9
>
>