Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37235
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 72.14.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=YId4qlRQR5CR8fsU/9SFNkPiep6G1yMV86db0O22RzogUQL3lHDQacwvC8a+0X1URMpQQOCwUqgkR8s3IXmO1msctfxXqLKTa1k70sGaUAgOBGV8r0kwKRfJDvgyKjro6q1QXxuyg6k1surah7z8qLByqM4kW+v+g2ILt19wtw8=
Message-ID: <7dd2dc0b0804251224s750679acn169637efbd8653fa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:24:56 -0600
To: "Sam Barrow" <sam@sambarrow.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Privett" <jeremy@omegavortex.net>, 
	"Alain Williams" <addw@phcomp.co.uk>, internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1209150944.20639.24.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2899_28166711.1209151497069"
References: <1209137410.6642.9.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
	 <1209147362.20639.7.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
	 <20080425182341.GB14490@mint.phcomp.co.uk>
	 <1209149047.20639.18.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
	 <48122C14.7070705@omegavortex.net>
	 <1209150944.20639.24.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Return type hinting patch
From: quickshiftin@gmail.com ("Nathan Nobbe")

------=_Part_2899_28166711.1209151497069
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:08 -0500, Jeremy Privett wrote:
> > Sam Barrow wrote:
> > > I figured it out, the syntax is now as follows:
> > >
> > > function a($b, $c) returns d {
> > > }
> > >
> > > I'll post an update soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's certainly a non-intuitive syntax. How about we take a page out of
> > the book of other C-style languages before trying to invent something
> > else? I agree with Stas, "return" and "returns" are not part of a
> > function definition.
>
> I don't think it's non-intuitive at all, and even so, it's the most
> intuitive we have. This ordering makes more sense to me at first glance (in
> the order I would think about things; scope, name, arguments, return).


im not sure the following has been explicitly proposed, but how about
omitting the 'return' keyword and placing the return type hint before the
function identifier

function int a($b, $c) {}

i think that is most congruent with 'typical' of c style languages, no ?

-nathan

------=_Part_2899_28166711.1209151497069--