Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113945 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22497 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2021 03:23:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2021 03:23:14 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1443F180003 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 20:21:39 -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-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-vs1-f48.google.com (mail-vs1-f48.google.com [209.85.217.48]) (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 ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 20:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-f48.google.com with SMTP id v29so4548883vsi.7 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 20:21:38 -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=rk8wES4C7JmDCG9+bUWCy09Be1wP/4JAOzxZ88zEDsI=; b=q+YIzOBgFawjVrefEsOdRNIr3M5KBJ/y+laH5tJckzE/b0p0iS/VCbCOFIAOHDIuq5 66oy+pf25tg+N3/fN9LtIMtb1jkaIPtRBIw4QQxYUWx2BN62qJPHvHL9Dy0E/v89i+H3 um3gOlIEkKgc64Lxz9OgjtlmW3kuOjwwW2GMOwHoF5WIKZo3Np/Fb1LdPDMVjl0cTJU6 OibqQddprqaTTfVgGqWx2IHfH/edVidQuoMf3FB6B+SkffJCbHep3xDMv+CahzZyvbd7 EjZr3mDeUYTnidbrLjjXFjWbKhlTCyf+T4ZD6F5Aoyqf4jBOS6AVeRdTAxajcxqW4I9m K4zQ== 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=rk8wES4C7JmDCG9+bUWCy09Be1wP/4JAOzxZ88zEDsI=; b=qd8t6gLY15TQdHnBau9Ohfhbl7VuDFtpHMzqwze5qYmhkVKNgRVol2QnUfLOsUFKwd q0BvOeebj8j6clNd8mU8KBw+ML/24Jacz9tmxV7aUp4wPlksAWeSfdPqG0MMr/2BmlQ1 BRazw9qmbBflc6hANHRPqBgWfFVel8zCgW1e4aTk3FBVXN2bft5oL1PJIPK+y6nA/Jwr 2VPIyYYjr/a0mA5uinOuifLtkQU1s7Yod1gsbReB5+3ilRMAI8bRFi6H5P0vnDNftbXr Qqcw5qEKvlQE//8phGPMIxsPywC4dxMqDJn9sCQt6KShodyP5uRnEIcCn+roQSa2XxpT GvXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ygi7RIVhiOEnohAG29y6N+yVsTFPwd+9QvJsWcHv5cFs4tj+v IkRbe19rcIk6L2nO19oqji3TQXcYip7v8Q/LqZA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiUgJgKZcei/QNnfhPVVuin36HgPEvqFmjQd4CWhV70BtGKBpSiXDmggEP5OL3uWIDgG056OncMWcQCVIunVU= X-Received: by 2002:a67:15c1:: with SMTP id 184mr113095vsv.43.1617506497446; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 20:21:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 23:21:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: David Rodrigues Cc: Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000033c4e005bf1d142a" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] noreturn type From: matthewmatthew@gmail.com (Matthew Brown) --00000000000033c4e005bf1d142a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 at 22:29, David Rodrigues wrote: > It is very likely that the proposal will be accepted (it is already 33/10), > I'm definitely not counting my chickens. > Is there any chance of discussing terms, even if the "never" indication is > winning at the moment? Or did I miss this discussion? > The RFC discussion is here: https://externals.io/message/113442. Someone suggested "terminus", but nobody replied supporting that suggestion (that was your opportunity!). Lots of people suggested "never", enough that a vote on "noreturn" vs "never" was added to the final RFC. As for "terminus", I don't think there's much benefit to PHP having its own separate term for a type "noreturn"/"never" that already exists in other languages. I know that naming is one of the "two hard things", but there's no need to make it any harder. --00000000000033c4e005bf1d142a--