Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78703
Return-Path: <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 76556 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2014 04:49:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2014 04:49:17 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.91 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.91 smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6
Received: from [108.166.43.91] ([108.166.43.91:44674] helo=smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 74/70-07533-C4CA9545 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:49:17 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp4.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2602E1801B6;
	Tue,  4 Nov 2014 23:49:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp4.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 6446518016D;
	Tue,  4 Nov 2014 23:49:13 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
Received: from Stass-MacBook-Pro.local (108-66-6-48.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.66.6.48])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA)
	by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.3.2);
	Wed, 05 Nov 2014 04:49:14 GMT
Message-ID: <5459AC48.7080109@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:49:12 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
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>
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> <CAFMT4NqCJzPEFJHt4hokj2MOG-JPHBae_2eVfx_OAybJTkC8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NqCJzPEFJHt4hokj2MOG-JPHBae_2eVfx_OAybJTkC8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Types on the right or on the left
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

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

C++ does it for entirely different reasons, related to scoping, and it
still has "auto" type at the beginning. In any case, I'd be very vary
taking late C++ hacks as a guide for syntax, as advanced C++ syntax is
not something I would recommend as an example of clarity.

> 3) Claiming compatibility for things which aren't proposed is meaningless.
> 
> People have already asked for support for static return types; doing

People asked for a lot of things, it doesn't mean it makes sense.
"static" as return type doesn't, since it does not specify any type at
all - it just says "I will return a type that is this class or derived
from this class" - which is the same as saying 'self'. There's no
additional information one can gather from 'static' declaration which is
not in 'self' declaration, and I see no use case to ever use it.

> `<return_type> "function" <identifier> "( <parameter_list> ")` would
> then be ambiguous. This is not some pie-in-the sky issue.

It's not, it's a non-issue at all, since "static" does not make sense in
that context.

-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/