Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113460 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46615 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2021 06:59:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2021 06:59:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EC91804E2 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:52:03 -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,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-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f179.google.com (mail-lj1-f179.google.com [209.85.208.179]) (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 22:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-f179.google.com with SMTP id r20so747458ljk.4 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:52:02 -0800 (PST) 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=0w/MmQNmjBIfUniX8NbMUyoGLVdPP5Hi0ezn0fFd55c=; b=hleLVtFNqekdVeRGjR+p4sj0IRt5wu+N8To+3LuJ2lBsJhRzLSS49nBB5Iyay1m1ip UKaeF3on3wdRl8q4B1n6YE6nnasvY7OICyO28nL/zIaF4lu36wPTe3S+kmPL4m6eHxuT JhYi4aU6whoJZxvfT69k5M//efT7xgk0TIFxpSgoe5tRUSZeiRn/zh/Ldag16rL3pppp Y12eoaJl2tabwIgLiq0OG9Z/xoHqIZ8hnBlbWvsG3nqZk+yD6UsqbDcF1wvfE+Ojpvnf bgJGa4eA2yiBU7Hd3hkGEt1u2E4ZChYDkFzoQev9KXAXSPflOn1sh/W2xnszxijkCoyn Fnag== 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=0w/MmQNmjBIfUniX8NbMUyoGLVdPP5Hi0ezn0fFd55c=; b=d5ShIo79AcVL0OtHTcDqKq6sr/vOmFJ8TYO9FRaFe7UgYGAg+B977zvzm9uSd4wl2c A9EgyfYCvrypMV+stVQyoJCg2Zkahx+Yf6VIvD9pM0D0NwHw1JXAM1dVF09Ifad6FfsS bqGTHRG9kl8Ns1COBfW6nJey7Ao1f9rbkvo8onvQBZyEzvj+qaThFAVZGjh3TauBRsvl gIjpqyHRfG0/ygKMy3cC51G00aXkd4Z10cXvWCCr5XwZ99fdxRD/xtUlB4QUm3+8+2t/ FRUU05v10ZSf+tRM9mw5aCcbWwAypxvxJbu1Aj0gfFfRaMyM/JvEgVMnrh+sjoi4ni7K 3H3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532jTl7f1Jb/eA0gcXTWELrpNCtE4qXvW8Y7gzMepXs25bghcTc8 u/2NgPUzvpZgkXH2Kpl62NJ1fyjBxo0IBJLdeLc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8x5PoIE+PF4mxb3kl9AHWVmWV5GvACSaXfEGAZEy0IwWIWGaSubtfcPbrliq4lwaISaoxQieQO7N4YVyGs7Y= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9d4:: with SMTP id 203mr3994905ljj.211.1615445519367; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:51:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <75a8a0ec-d988-7712-58b5-88c8061db605@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:51:46 -0800 Message-ID: To: Matthew Brown Cc: Rowan Tommins , Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055ff0b05bd3d382a" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] noreturn type From: sarkedev@gmail.com (Peter Stalman) --00000000000055ff0b05bd3d382a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed., Mar. 10, 2021, 11:22 Matthew Brown, wrote: > If a significant number agree I can add a secondary vote on noreturn vs > never, but never introduces more of a BC risk. > Hi Matt, I like this RFC, but I'd like to see the RFC cover if any other languages have a similar return type. The definition of `void` is that it has no return value, so I too agree that the keyword `noreturn` is too close in meaning to `void`. I'd also like to throw the word `deadend` or something similar into the ring, to make things a bit clearer. Thanks, Peter --00000000000055ff0b05bd3d382a--