Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78636 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32362 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2014 13:20:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Nov 2014 13:20:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@tutteli.ch; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@tutteli.ch; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain tutteli.ch designates 80.74.154.78 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@tutteli.ch X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.154.78 ns73.kreativmedia.ch Linux 2.6 Received: from [80.74.154.78] ([80.74.154.78:35043] helo=hyperion.kreativmedia.ch) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D0/E4-06676-192D8545 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:20:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 3530 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2014 14:20:13 +0100 Received: from cm56-129-238.liwest.at (HELO RoLaptop) (86.56.129.238) by ns73.kreativmedia.ch with ESMTPSA (AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 4 Nov 2014 14:20:13 +0100 To: "'Chris Wright'" Cc: "'Andrea Faulds'" , "'Stas Malyshev'" , "'PHP Internals'" References: <002601cff777$eb923430$c2b69c90$@tutteli.ch> <000601cff80a$972e0250$c58a06f0$@tutteli.ch> <5458937F.9020304@sugarcrm.com> <0776A65F-D49A-4E8C-9771-6B5E5C4EA77E@ajf.me> <001d01cff829$5010a750$f031f5f0$@tutteli.ch> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <002701cff832$110aafc0$33200f40$@tutteli.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHFXQsvCqySdhOS5hZldA9wwvCKZAF9M3/mAYp5CtcBNMNzSAEoQBf0AT4q8RoCWR0dPQGk2k0lnBCcmhA= Content-Language: de-ch Subject: AW: AW: [PHP-DEV] Types on the right or on the left From: php@tutteli.ch ("Robert Stoll") > I guess it's worth noting that my *personal* opinion is that I'd also = rather have the function return type declaration on the > left (I'd also like to drop the requirement for the "function" keyword = in method declarations), but since there are a number > of reasons why this no longer makes sense, and will never make sense = again, I didn't hesitate to vote in favour of the > current proposal because more than anything else I think the feature = is what is important, and I know how much work has > been put in to ensuring that the proposal satisfies as many concerns = as possible. There will never be a better proposal than > this. To be clear, I would vote yes for the return type RFC if I had voting = rights. I'll continue this discussion after the return type RFC's voting = phase ended. I do not want to cast a damning light on the RFC.