Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78698
Return-Path: <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 62322 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2014 01:23:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2014 01:23:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=morrison.levi@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=morrison.levi@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.170 mail-ob0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.214.170] ([209.85.214.170:35577] helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 22/B1-54119-A2C79545 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:23:54 -0500
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id nt9so13088741obb.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:23:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=LbZ51gE4ey5iHXdaJXCkGFskC8cL9ytj5TQeZvz9fZc=;
        b=hBj+BGDi1IXq4hs2sNh0zy4/R5H1Uslz9J1CFKqjRd3/FBKJVWZVFfYCBR3epYdxd7
         lBSv6XtETWoyqJ4BHfQfiga3tjqhbyqt+8enQPg3IBOMam/z5fddOiO81+GZVrsrJXMx
         mEL5sCWPEoRgfygJ+f9gTDRP1YqaARAoawi3tuf4t8XSR9sL1VXK4yudqaGrMi+MS7Bn
         7ll2PLKfYPeYXJCumXX3ZMcCaY+O7BQ2q9SXHS1VGDqJnS8IQiiBa7u+21fGYYo0OhT7
         j4Q+/d9/pPyYhO46LwTc0XeEtFNfWiPNGSHqWYmFPyCkywD/49TrZGPINW4waObw8Y7j
         oNcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.78.106 with SMTP id a10mr45408972oex.21.1415150630990;
 Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.159.163 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:23:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <545977E1.2060700@sugarcrm.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>
	<CAFMT4No6jp=KVQzRbWU7ZKBiLVtZekwmj45p-Up4EgLDyVf2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<545977E1.2060700@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 18:23:50 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0GXUn81nnXqqig2XEqz6YOJoHAU
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NrXXw9Tj2MwR47g9XpxtiuFDM00z3v1QQNTSEjmOfH2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Leigh <leight@gmail.com>, 
	Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Types on the right or on the left
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

I apologize: my baby managed to send my email premature. I'm not even
sure what hotkey he hit ^^

>> 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.
>
> If it is possible, why it's not the part of the RFC? Probably because
> there's not much place where it would make sense. So, the only
> objections so far have been:
<snip>
> 3. We could somehow in some undefined time in the future allow static
> there, even though we're designing it right now and we actually *do not*
> allow it and see no reason to allow it.

You seem to be under the assumption that I have designed this as THE
RFC for return types, and there will be no others. Quite the contrary:
it has been designed to be incredibly minimal, and has taken into
consideration possible expansions and allowed for them to work. Other
examples not already included are generics and function signatures as types.

What arguments do you have in favor of doing `<return_type> "function"
<identifier> "( <parameter_list> ")`? So far I haven't heard any
argument *for* them that is different than the ones *against* them,
but on top of that I have a real, possible technical reason against
that way.