Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:57066
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender)
References: <2095305E-D4E3-4D7E-8218-32EE99688E0C@GMAIL.COM>
 <CAF+90c-Wtok1fnVxokYUFQhbYnMcNDwWWT63F8NDp+JnxCDMew@mail.gmail.com>
 <2C90FB94-38C4-4270-8C6A-B89304BA8ED8@gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6gneOOehrsz-qVifmNxg6tnyLt9hqfnAwKZmfpXdeC9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <159A7CA2-8561-40DA-9434-CAAE12304DDB@gmail.com> <4EF3B56A.4040809@gmail.com>
 <-2451498990672032588@unknownmsgid> <4EF3BD21.2040301@sugarcrm.com>
 <-6952580475866195972@unknownmsgid> <4EF3C7F7.9010404@sugarcrm.com>
 <4841689055873111589@unknownmsgid> <4EF3D18B.7040900@sugarcrm.com>
 <11CFB4E4-F2DA-4766-AA23-D08180C3910B@gmail.com> <A633CF2D7C7BED41B41F1E64F25507B8068ECEC8F0@MAILR001.mail.lan>
 <CAGMw7vG5+prmvRgJsLOjajSoWmAm6jbkXwV5KiVs0JspWNk_Bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGMw7vG5+prmvRgJsLOjajSoWmAm6jbkXwV5KiVs0JspWNk_Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:47:07 -0500
Message-ID: <-1820303040133346119@unknownmsgid>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFLDuG1ja2U=?= <ar@ez.no>
Cc: John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>, =?UTF-8?B?w4FuZ2VsIEdvbnrDoWxleg==?= <keisial@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0266a39709f04b4cb09a5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Return Type Hinting for Methods RFC
From: will.fitch@gmail.com (Will Fitch)

--000e0ce0266a39709f04b4cb09a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 23, 2011, at 6:32 PM, "Andr=C3=A9 R=C3=B8mcke" <ar@ez.no> wrote:

2011/12/23 John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com>

> > From: Will Fitch [mailto:will.fitch@gmail.com]
> >
> > I would like to take this opportunity to query on a consensus:
> >
> > Would you prefer to allow methods with type hinted return values to
> return null at will, or add a marker noting that it *may* return null?
> >
> > Example: Return null at will
> >
> > public ArrayIterator getIterator()
> > {
> >    // something happened, will return null
> >    return null;
> > }
> >
> > Example: Return only if identified as such
> >
> > public ArrayIterator? getIterator()
> > {
> >     return null;
> > }
>
> I hate the syntax in the second example (using ?).
>


It looks strange, but easy to get used to. Two examples from C#:

public decimal? Grade { get; set; }

public Nullable<System.DateTime> Time { get; set; }



If it is decided that we continue down the road of limiting nullable
returns, and want to add an indicator, what about something like this:

public nullable ArrayIterator getIterator()

If the nullable token isn't declared, it can't return null.



>
> IMO allowing null should be the default unless specifically disallowed.


I disagree for the reasons mentioned by for instance Robert.
Type hints should be strict/explicit or not done at all.

--000e0ce0266a39709f04b4cb09a5--