Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113454 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 10596 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2021 21:00:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2021 21:00:33 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4C71804D1 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:53 -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,NICE_REPLY_A, 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-f47.google.com (mail-wr1-f47.google.com [209.85.221.47]) (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 ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id e10so24840758wro.12 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=raCMtIsdIiRH2DRe6DgwnexR5dQVIwkZdt/5z1W6t0s=; b=Y5sXAIYNVwKQ6dUcnvf/hMAJWxsZ/Xp5zoiD++aWZMaJyig92uhHiL8sdwSwWRJrlB 3mpDVzg7VwknMUulH5j/2ESHoU92J3mRMYC9GDcvUpYIsIFqCc4vWCQJYsX4nhB3U75h ormBxwtwf2cDKEIeDxrYUSIF6s/WK8vFJlv31Xpss1ahnA1ZgSdASKKEsJmZ2iMgxxYv 5zwRK68kW4bE+pa3g5elnAjTRHoCUXeBRzMJfzWNn6LBY1RExNhxxKv4EBXxMWcJ4ZTG o0WO5afcFNNKfIxDAlc9bxt8kjSyOKxL6NtptTBZRF7FyM3yVTjpWxnEAgx8SZyu0QJ9 C10w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=raCMtIsdIiRH2DRe6DgwnexR5dQVIwkZdt/5z1W6t0s=; b=htXi3inlRk5WFQccA29gcQAkVS8zdYNyvRixNxN9EJFBOO4E8QTxaS5yhFxiqt4kqD 2ABkSeGtDocVYCmng+YwZBd5+MfZPbvGfYqoXAT9OeLmn1mlX+u9oIKf0a68JEdVgwV6 tK5vfMdE2joh2AVXgzMbjc3uDxF3/odjAN848baxjrZG1y4pX/n5JkMQU5W6lL86z5HD sU8xewy8igi4DLWEUzjFNBpl44NUw2hgUBU34yBDMsWbU/B7MtDswDF157FNNMBCELgR A6iGxwKkKZT5r0KhQZPv7b7GBPVAI3sJOx/jH73UD1FGXhwZ09wsI4T6qQqef3lnRw3e tzLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/s+vDMkjcKkdjGsMbgrXRjE38042Bp4Z/3rwmhQxz7ip06JNd vr16RdWEmVWIElULOcbIhyFvDm2S0EU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwbTwue6f2FHg1lXX3MQHplKSGjoxMiobcwaoKqDT144e69/TB518//SQTt6bHtSKE3gmkCIQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:c3c8:: with SMTP id d8mr5354448wrg.167.1615409569256; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c16sm606956wrs.81.2021.03.10.12.52.48 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:48 -0800 (PST) To: Internals References: <75a8a0ec-d988-7712-58b5-88c8061db605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6fdee65d-4663-a805-0df6-376edb573f77@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:52:48 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] noreturn type From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 10/03/2021 19:21, Matthew Brown wrote: > If the Zend engine hits that operand — which only happens if a > throw/exit *hasn't* been encountered — it emits a TypeError. Right, that should probably be spelled out in the RFC. Checking at run-time in that way is consistent with actual return types, but inconsistent with "void", which performs all its checking at compile-time. On that note, the "comparison to void" section could maybe more clearly call out the difference in behaviour, rather than showing the happy path for both. If I understand right: - the "sayHello" function would give an error at runtime if marked "noreturn" - the "redirect" function would run fine if marked "void" - a function containing "return null;" would fail at compile time for both - a function containing "return;" would be OK for "void", but fail at compile time for "noreturn"? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]