Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123831
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAGC1OsCEgqhSNDCZaJ3tK_EEQwPHvqs+jsL3XRY3KeAhLRkGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzD2jtiBLcW6anQP4R7X4jBznwBX9B0pfbzavUsz+qPEZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzD2jtiBLcW6anQP4R7X4jBznwBX9B0pfbzavUsz+qPEZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:53:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAGC1OvDeB16Vmq_VXxUmTOKv6etsNGcW7_cMSpxoXJG2o3z7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Add $this return type
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From: radar3301@gmail.com (radar3301)

@Alexandru:
>  Worth reading:
Ah shoot, my search-fu failed me (it's not listed on the RFC page, and
I suppose I was not using
the right search terms). I'm glad to find out this rfc previously
existed, and in that case, I
guess I'd like to revive that discussion. :)

@Luigi:
> The part that I do not like is the implicit return: it may confuse developers and static analysis
> tools.
I understand the implicit return may be somewhat confusing, but one of
the secondary driving
factors, aside from a much clearer API signature (without requiring a
docblock comment), and engine
enforced object safety, was the benefit of reduced "boilerplate" code.
However, I suppose I can
accept that this may not be possible, but I would like to discuss it
as a potential option. However,
I disagree with you about the static analysis tools.

> Is it possible to replace "$this" with "this"? Cleaner and coherent with "self".
I actually thought about this a bit before posting, and I came to the
same conclusion as Nicolas,
i.e.:
/**
 * @return $this
 */

To quote Nicolas:
> About the syntax, I think the one proposed in the RFC is crystal clear. I've been used to seeing
> the "$" symbol [snip]
More on this below.


@previous commenters on the old thread

Andreas Heigl said:
> If we allow a $this [snip] as a returntype to clarify that it has to be the same instance that is
> returned, I would also either expect that the returntype 'self' does explicitly not allow the
> same instance to be returned. As that would be a huge BC break [snip] we should implement a
> returntype "!$this" to explicitly state that the contract here returns not the current instance
> but a new one.
Strongly disagree. This would be too much of a BC, and I don't really
see the benefit, even allowing
for a "!$this"-style returntype. I'm not opposed to a separate RFC or
discussion regarding this, but
I don't feel it's appropriate here.


Sebastian Bergmann said:
> [snip] please not "$this" as the name for a type.
> Off the top of my head, I think that "same" could make sense.
My primary vote would still be for "$this" as explained above, but I
could potentially be persuaded
to switch to "this" or "same" as alternatives if the dollar-sign is
too much of a hang-up.


Regards,
radar3301