Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78693
Return-Path: <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 54309 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2014 00:55:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2014 00:55:15 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=fail
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=fail; sender-id=fail
Received-SPF: fail (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com does not designate 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.44 mail-qa0-f44.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.216.44] ([209.85.216.44:64374] helo=mail-qa0-f44.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id C1/00-54119-17579545 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:55:15 -0500
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w8so10820303qac.31
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:55:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
         :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=1VKuxOfqhKLTV5do91cM1mZlLZTYmsc7SBkGMaEHiGc=;
        b=PTtlA6zRv3nXrWvp8wptX9YsGEIKR9AT4SlCvMCZho+iKIVKAcErNimUfn85IxjWcX
         28AGsTtLy9tZ/TaVYqheO/USRbPtfyUefrpNkrHTgERctOlbi6foC6zjvYAkswS9D2mN
         0x/zWIAk8Uxl7q/9vbru/eztnVBFUJO6L9NJLwoNfDdFGFH8oGUTyaAlkj9RFrrLN5gd
         7Z3kmLfOeZbI8oewYdPSBgQ18/WoH4KmTS+1hkbN3+vHrCeOXttqpFCJ5LpOlKjx8ZNN
         cpH+DW58wMdT6hN5vTwdr+tfe4unPh09NOZQdoI1U5+1rDXLsnnfUJCISt3vkBPJWMkF
         sHIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnQ3/C/2ltnY80vdtEDizjV651Ttt7NOOyylyG2a+bt0HsVhGqb0arBfjBhVVzzZWXJ5FV
X-Received: by 10.140.39.139 with SMTP id v11mr11860980qgv.45.1415148911311;
        Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.200.14] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u46sm1853437qgd.3.2014.11.04.16.55.09
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5459756C.5010806@lerdorf.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:55:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
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>
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> <CAFMT4No6jp=KVQzRbWU7ZKBiLVtZekwmj45p-Up4EgLDyVf2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4No6jp=KVQzRbWU7ZKBiLVtZekwmj45p-Up4EgLDyVf2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Types on the right or on the left
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

On 11/04/2014 04:42 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>> If we used this syntax instead, which wouldn’t disrupt grep:
>>>
>>>     public Foo function bar();
>>>
>>> It’d be inconsistent with normal function declarations which would 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.

static isn't a type it is a scope. You want to expand return types to
also cover scopes? How is that in any way useful?

-Rasmus