Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126699
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaXqqRWL8ygMGoA5xnMtt7w6rE-5WJJZ5P9oiO3vHgqvod=Fw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaXqqRWL8ygMGoA5xnMtt7w6rE-5WJJZ5P9oiO3vHgqvod=Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:37:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM0CcxjFj3EqiRtBNjO69GsVHUbwpioQOn9UvXcqjGANxCkGrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Never parameters
To: Daniel Scherzer <daniel.e.scherzer@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b41d050630021c52"
From: zsidelnik@gmail.com (Eugene Sidelnyk)

--000000000000b41d050630021c52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to start discussion on a new RFC about allowing `never` for
> parameter types when declaring a method.
>


At first signature seemed somewhat confusing to me, but now it makes
perfect sense.

Type-wise, about LSP, I find it logical that more concrete implementations
could define more generic parameter types without breaking the interface.
In this respect any type is more generic than never.


Yet, do you think it's reasonable that  "never" type should be used rather
than "void"? From what I know, never - is a special type used when function
never returns, and always dies or throws an exception.

On the other hand, void is just an indication that function never returns
(but doesn't die).

In my opinion, it would make more sense to use void parameters.

Also, I remember that in C / C++ language there's such a concept as "void
pointer", - a completely legitimate structure (likely the same concept as
here) that could point to address of the data of any type.

Thank you

>

--000000000000b41d050630021c52
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi internals,<div><br></div><div>I&#39;d like to st=
art discussion on a new RFC about allowing `never` for parameter types when=
 declaring a method.</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div di=
r=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">At first=
 signature  seemed somewhat confusing to me, but now it makes perfect sense=
.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Type-wise, about LSP, =
I find it logical that more concrete implementations could define more gene=
ric parameter types without breaking the interface. In this respect any typ=
e is more generic than never.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Yet, do you think it&#39;s reasonable tha=
t=C2=A0 &quot;never&quot; type should be used rather than &quot;void&quot;?=
 From what I know, never - is a special type used when function never retur=
ns, and always dies or throws an exception.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><b=
r></div><div dir=3D"auto">On the other hand, void is just an indication tha=
t function never returns (but doesn&#39;t die).</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">In my opinion, it would make more sense to use void=
 parameters.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Also, I rem=
ember that in C / C++ language there&#39;s such a concept as &quot;void poi=
nter&quot;, - a completely legitimate structure (likely the same concept as=
 here) that could point to address of the data of any type.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Thank you=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--000000000000b41d050630021c52--