Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110835 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40762 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2020 15:17:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2020 15:17:52 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1C3180088 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 07:07:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id q7so23886357ljm.1 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KEgcUy9v6KJuwpc+yO5h1Gnvho8LoTE1G1NV+Bqx6S4=; b=cjUajZTLBSedaqfLQPGBQOXr8EpZKhg1lWpGe3BacMUcP5X0Hdyvg6MHTlB2eCyNSN Xp0CJISoaCBnE9jyTQuVZuvqt8oGFNGlUct0X7NcQJvBOeC7p2iIkhNQqsvMYTOmMlqm tqQMdBL9+En5jgU3JUkbowSPqGfpKCkoBPDeWm5SduPvbiUt7tvUPEGWfcZL1J4uzabb WoHXldpaVUs7L5ay/+3TyHTqXf/N/1LvPNSm/87uER9AyL56iHniY+zEOTc8QP00hmNB xjilVe36UXvw0QgYN+EpItQRMVgg7fFbCWE4KGr8Y/+IuLwTp6IcFiSJCj5r2reJjglh CTWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KEgcUy9v6KJuwpc+yO5h1Gnvho8LoTE1G1NV+Bqx6S4=; b=W9Ll4fBZTkdj7ETyUXLCsXBFTK5hapQG2Q4uHH1UDlu027m281wnUxzTAz8ylly0fJ 7puwQzV7T3SFRo8VqI3t+uYwAuBd5paaGx5KR9FycGe0ghhlgyDzAu6US6K2e+hRKN6T hNzeDXkcj5BdlkxnsVo8aaGmvymueJj5MJBv4JqhHb/Vs17ASriC9/d5LMrw2i5V/kB0 g3y0tnMWpz9Cugr62Z4ef90ImflKhtbPE01TX0pBmHHpzF7gy7sZ6Z2P+URr4c2o5Xly e5siHJvVf6lWyp0FJzOPDI8D7F70nhfT6n1hwTgs5GXpBlat2tzMGWRIrpwQe+PsTIAL fe+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Q/6WMIQJy9tOrg3aSj6YWXxJCwJRo9TZ7A5vSALEfszJnUNpt QqUCLGC49dCzTRWsAJdNGGs4bx60bCRyZXmTCQA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfJkDDmoG6i0ycH7akkOAlPdBVGQwcSUOtwWYK9+HcUmLebdLJUmyjaXRiQDn+9RSn85h2WPQP1FweH+Chwww= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e87:: with SMTP id f7mr20690431ljk.44.1593785249791; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 17:07:17 +0300 Message-ID: To: Peter Bowyer Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a984d505a98a0b42" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Make constructors and destructors return void From: benas.molis.iml@gmail.com (Benas IML) --000000000000a984d505a98a0b42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hey, Most of the internals who voted no, as far as I know, did so due to subjective reasons (i. e. don't want to allow declaring constructors/destructors as `void`). I don't think that should affect on what you believe is a change for better or for worse. As I mentioned before, it doesn't make much sense to allow `__clone` to be declared as `void` and make constructors/destructors an exception. As for the BC break, yes, only people who return something from a constructor/destructor are in trouble and will get a deprecation warning in PHP 8.0. Best regards, Benas Seliuginas On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 3:47 PM Peter Bowyer wrote: > Hi, > > I have voted in favour, but enough people I respect have voted against to > make me reconsider. > > My understanding is the changes will only cause problems to people who > have returned something from __construct() or __destruct(). As people > shouldn't have done this, IMO it is a smaller BC issue than the BC break > that would have been caused if the proposed #[] attribute syntax had been > chosen. > > Peter > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 22:12, Benas IML wrote: > >> Hey internals, >> >> I have opened the voting for the RFC, let's hope everything is going >> to be smooth :). If you have any other questions, let me know! >> >> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/make_ctor_ret_void >> >> Best regards, >> Benas Seliuginas >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > --000000000000a984d505a98a0b42--