Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37300 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 21853 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2008 15:43:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Apr 2008 15:43:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sam@sambarrow.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sam@sambarrow.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain sambarrow.com from 208.70.128.104 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sam@sambarrow.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 208.70.128.104 smtp-gw78.mailanyone.net Received: from [208.70.128.104] ([208.70.128.104:36335] helo=smtp-gw78.mailanyone.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C2/A5-26601-23247184 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:43:46 -0400 Received: from mailanyone.net by smtp-gw78.mailanyone.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (MailAnyone extSMTP sam@sambarrow.com) id 1Jqrzb-00077N-2X; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:43 -0500 To: Pierre Joye Cc: Nathan Nobbe , David =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Z=FClke?= , Alain Williams , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <1209137410.6642.9.camel@sbarrow-desktop> <48122C14.7070705@omegavortex.net> <1209150944.20639.24.camel@sbarrow-desktop> <7dd2dc0b0804251224s750679acn169637efbd8653fa@mail.gmail.com> <1209151505.20639.25.camel@sbarrow-desktop> <20080425231305.GC14490@mint.phcomp.co.uk> <9484717D-2EC6-44FF-93C8-1A9911294AF6@bitxtender.com> <7dd2dc0b0804261524l22237b58tfb9d0a341ab77233@mail.gmail.com> <1209482524.3257.9.camel@sbarrow-desktop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1209483613.3257.12.camel@sbarrow-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Return type hinting patch From: sam@sambarrow.com (Sam Barrow) Mine uses less code to accomplish the same thing, doesn't introduce new tokens, and has an easier syntax. I'm still working on it, but I can give an update in a couple days. I just wanted to see what people thought about the implementation aspect of it. On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 17:37 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Sam Barrow wrote: > > > > Well in summation I think this is something that should be implemented, > > I don't see any arguments against implementing this atleast for arrays > > and classes, like we already have for function parameters. > > > > The only thing left would be to decide on the syntax > > > > public array function x() { // Probably the easiest > > public array x() { // I like this best, if it's possible > > public function x() return array { // Probably not, just throwing it out > > there > > > > Agree? > > > Again, what's about the well written RFC and patch from RFC? Have you > contacted him and/or tried to get things done there instead of > duplicating the discussions, the work and the code? > > > Thanks for your work, > > Cheers,