Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113417 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78311 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2021 15:27:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2021 15:27:34 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C076D180505 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:19:20 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) (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 ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id h98so11816623wrh.11 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 07:19:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VvO7E91cPJdImzuS5EqvSje1Cw+zsMm5zrv6xtAE/+E=; b=QtRS9PRBDBLLjS/wu7mRGhP2h73oWXQ8bNKkJYMiZ41HMq77pEeCSbSSt5ebr1AtIm Pr1899lNuyqxqCO2aFZcSlk+0FTxVmzgdluGeJZioko5LEnVWWxIl6pkVB5lIXr/XZW0 P5+ft2zDNFZzKOxQBPTesSDxVeLMvTDvdf4SNYT/WM8axmN2epJA/HikCAP6drYndY3+ c6Ie1hsQI+1mg9ArzVbAuvWikSTjqdmzcjHSvbHys0mBsAd156/gqMad4dsCeuxSktLf YG2JMTRyB4rvPvXnnnYBaQ6UyZYNc4OpLbCFHaea2BfC08VydSg9nmwG/6F8EGWoNgxL TlLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VvO7E91cPJdImzuS5EqvSje1Cw+zsMm5zrv6xtAE/+E=; b=n15/cxOS5rkxMyAuuatJIvbZlLAueBIshZMasKNidliigx9/94X407F/62CFSU68Ne ro7k9PY6V41z3/WJCJl5/5AvFRjYvVd2touVIgTsINFwcmfHGnClhc3IYbPYO3d1AVDQ 5aRuVeyyopJ5e1IFnDIftSZJdh9ycU6DOeAQ3pS4Mx6J7YUItmRgFwkSjdfbf+W4LG/Y reqXXIz91mx7k4sGPxjAhnNt5G24uah0QPVGzlu+egDn2oNzvX5iKg4r4xq9mRVYOilW nOkFMsuwDJ7nYYRxAmp7wNQi7mT/CBKERLvygqr14EyN2EYiAekqCc0RyggT2zpRLUuB 5SWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533q11wMyVGWyK3jltMQ1tNgVpEHacFNGUB6p0rGtmQg8rhYkKN6 kpUeJunssCZ768eBk2fhdD/aQPe7W01XOg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwl5AM7ABz+omJcMtyGX2XBdhulPf0LSjmGWylRftduo1HBh7IBIGtFoR2dYvKkTIYLwbV7Vg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fb91:: with SMTP id a17mr23182910wrr.93.1615216756182; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 07:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from claude.fritz.box ([89.249.45.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s3sm18786979wrt.93.2021.03.08.07.19.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Mar 2021 07:19:15 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:19:15 +0100 Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: To: =?utf-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Adding return types to internal methods From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache) > Le 6 mars 2021 =C3=A0 23:56, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis = a =C3=A9crit : >=20 > Hi Internals, >=20 > I've just finished the first iteration of the RFC ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/internal_method_return_types) as well as the > implementation based on the feedback Nikita and Nicolas provided. = Thus, I'd > like to start the discussion phase. >=20 > Regards: > M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Hi, Two remarks: (1) The RFC is about return type of non-final methods. The same issue = might arise for typed properties, whose type are supposed to be = invariant under inheritance; although it is admittedly rarely useful to = redeclare them in the subclass. Should typed properties be handled in = the same way, or should we simply recommend to not redeclare properties? (2) Nicolas Grekas has beaten about E_STRICT (E_DEPRECATED is fine in = this case). I=E2=80=99m just adding this: By reintroducing E_STRICT you = are effectively reverting the [Reclassify E_STRICT notices] RFC, whose = motivation was to =E2=80=9Csimplify our error model and resolve the = currently unclear role of strict standards notices=E2=80=9D. Thus, you = should propose a clear role of those resurrected E_STRICT notices, that = justifies the complication of the error model. [Reclassify E_STRICT notices]: = https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict =E2=80=94Claude=