Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78702
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 74528 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2014 04:29:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2014 04:29:32 -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 209.85.218.51 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.51 mail-oi0-f51.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.218.51] ([209.85.218.51:33713] helo=mail-oi0-f51.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 0A/10-07533-AA7A9545 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:29:31 -0500
Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id g201so11392547oib.24
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:29:27 -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=apceEg9BHACjOBDVST9GMe2REZa7q7yaji7sNi2zics=;
        b=UwQTj0k9pug5CJ2oRVZNVby5wZ0mBXtw5+EHwYCEZRXrBeAQXrx5ZTgPc6xzNbeCF/
         qEsXajJfwEQ2ickDWYG6Fj3D4gtByfpTxVkaYIkZ+sNlVo73PXwCXpVlhrKTAbhfEdDP
         gLARPW+bTnkK3Sxfd1OhLJuHkpvfXxOyCw3qIT2AvD22G+qUL9Xv06co7PYsgZaUhBFd
         LVVEZb68/b3cj+b+0axJ4jCT/pBpCBXijyLitEOg1Mo8Jt6GND2taQ2m0XHAIPMSgQRv
         /2IPsvaF5YwVzlm8EhPpyUMY2c6QWpfrT/xJJMtsQFO1dDVhvnaKSw2lzpghsCC5K77L
         2EhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.58.110 with SMTP id p14mr10374389obq.40.1415161767550;
 Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.159.163 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:29:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54599A0F.2060400@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>
	<CAFMT4NrXXw9Tj2MwR47g9XpxtiuFDM00z3v1QQNTSEjmOfH2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54599A0F.2060400@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:29:27 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rULOxv9lxSKGrLK3kE0kFu0zuec
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NqCJzPEFJHt4hokj2MOG-JPHBae_2eVfx_OAybJTkC8Rw@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 reformatted Stas' arguments to a form better for point-by-point
discussion; I'm sorry if I lost too much information when doing so.

1) It's more "natural" to do a prefixed type.

This is the same thing that I am claiming, just from the opposite viewpoint.

2) Type prefixed parameters and type suffixed returns is
unprecedented, outside of Hack.

C++11 adds suffixed types for returns despite having prefixed types
for everything else, including previous return types.

3) Claiming compatibility for things which aren't proposed is meaningless.

People have already asked for support for static return types; doing
`<return_type> "function" <identifier> "( <parameter_list> ")` would
then be ambiguous. This is not some pie-in-the sky issue.

I understand why people might think that compatibility for generics is
meaningless, and can respect that (however, C++ templates and Java
generics are not good examples of how things work, but I see no point
in discussing it in this context; message me off-list if anyone is
interested in talking about it).

Once again I apologize if I haven distilled Stas' arguments incorrectly.

-----

In summary, and relevant to the point of the original discussion:
prefixed return types are just not possible if we want to support
'static' return types and keep the ability the current search
semantics for function declarations. Or rather, nobody has proposed
something that would work for both outside of what I am suggesting in
the return type RFC.