Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37237
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.200.173 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=SY+bXPwg0UkJyngbcPZJ/Qa5KP9eOhyJM8GpA4wDnTayT7GBZmHClgIwvLelPc0PGLXSwiHlu1o41AiMcm9RmjKszbJc/niweL9MJ1pNqGAP+gv2r2zO4jYbk1fDByp0vCdnFXTN1RAvLgpKkLVinlaGfvObI1B+p0k9YMtfxgU=
Message-ID: <e2e02fe0804251422k36dd56c6r71b1ce69401d42b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:22:10 -0700
To: "Sam Barrow" <sam@sambarrow.com>
Cc: "Nathan Nobbe" <quickshiftin@gmail.com>, 
	"Jeremy Privett" <jeremy@omegavortex.net>, 
	"Alain Williams" <addw@phcomp.co.uk>, internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1209151505.20639.25.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_7739_22052727.1209158531940"
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>
	 <7dd2dc0b0804251224s750679acn169637efbd8653fa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209151505.20639.25.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Return type hinting patch
From: chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com ("Chris Stockton")

------=_Part_7739_22052727.1209158531940
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:24 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> > 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) {}
> >
>
> This is, but I don't think this is possible, due to confusion with the
> keywords (public, private, static, abstract, etc). Plus this leads to
> long strings of keywords.


There can be no technical reason why this more adopted and understood syntax
should  not be possible. Adding returns as a keyword would completely break
tons of code. Why are the proposals on something that is so consistent
across many languages being changed so obscurely? Why a seperate
non-intuitive syntax.

public function int (string $foo) { return 1; }

Can't we keep the sanity?


> [ ... ] Plus this leads to
> long strings of keywords.


Are you kidding?  strlen('returns int') > strlen('int'); .....

-Chris

------=_Part_7739_22052727.1209158531940--