Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78692
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <545917A2.6000206@lerdorf.com>
References: <002601cff777$eb923430$c2b69c90$@tutteli.ch>
	<CAFMT4NqJDcek6itqAUt2iOyHd2icc-tDdWsEjiRYvG1YFcc5cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<000601cff80a$972e0250$c58a06f0$@tutteli.ch>
	<5458937F.9020304@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAPwsocFQHPDFBVtW5FBCGkz_cy-LB0AzJ48qYJ9zxafAh-G1LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<545910F1.8030904@sugarcrm.com>
	<859A97F0-7C58-406A-857B-557F8AA657AD@ajf.me>
	<545917A2.6000206@lerdorf.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:42:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4No6jp=KVQzRbWU7ZKBiLVtZekwmj45p-Up4EgLDyVf2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Leigh <leight@gmail.com>, 
	Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Types on the right or on the left
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

>> If we used this syntax instead, which wouldn=E2=80=99t disrupt grep:
>>
>>     public Foo function bar();
>>
>> It=E2=80=99d be inconsistent with normal function declarations which wou=
ld have to have Foo after function.
>
> I don't understand that inconsistency.
>
>    public Foo function bar() { }
>
> looks perfectly sane to me. PHP's syntax was very heavily influenced by
> C from day 1. In C you have:
>
>    static int bar() { }
>
> In PHP the 'function' keyword indicates what follows is a function.
> Putting something in between the function keyword and the name of the
> function would confuse me. To me "function bar()" is inseparable and is
> equivalent to "bar()" in C which makes the above examples consistent
> with each other.

Except `static function()` and `static function foo()` already have
meaning, and if we allowed static return types (very possible) that
would be ambiguous. This syntax is a no-go.