Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110900
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANeKSiRe95yUeyUV5S3MU1Bzh7A_Z0OQF_WVNFK16CcbE5wYqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeKSiTH3kuzJ+MemxvMTHfcA_T2M=nXgKGN1eirqFuxx-J5tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEPJduk40QJwtbzVMaopEDa21peNh=xJT-YNnLL4HQ9=PaC-5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJduk40QJwtbzVMaopEDa21peNh=xJT-YNnLL4HQ9=PaC-5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:41:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJvSBVNTdmVy1713LEdNkHPfY-fCZJ7XwezVy2c63tKd_d1Bsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
Cc: Benas IML <benas.molis.iml@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000021c5605aa041060"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Make constructors and destructors
 return void
From: phpmailinglists@gmail.com (Peter Bowyer)

--000000000000021c5605aa041060
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 14:52, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote:

> For me the RFC vote should be "allow to dcelare return types on
> constructors/destructors?", then people *can* declare void, but *can* also
> declare other things, but nothing *must* be done. Then it becomes a
> question of coding styles enforcing "void" for all constructors of a
> project for example. I would vote Yes on that.
>

Isn't this close to what the second vote "Allow void return type on
constructors/destructors?" does?

My understanding is that a "Yes" on this vote will:
1. Allow you to omit a return type (and therefore return whatever you want)
2. Explicitly add void return type

This doesn't do exactly what you ask for (to add any return type) but to me
is close enough; as these are meant to be void according to the PHP docs,
having it as the only explicit return type makes sense to me.

Peter

--000000000000021c5605aa041060--