Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79173
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <003701d008da$0c60d630$25228290$@tutteli.ch>
References: <CAFMT4Npco8sQ-+5hpUNa3pu5L2q7mnCVnsCjZee=NbNDrkwLUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<003701d008da$0c60d630$25228290$@tutteli.ch>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:14:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NpgS19TUq+D9PuifjjfxC8AMOASZao6J8iwZ=+Tu3E7DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] Return Type Variance Checking
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

> It should be mentioned for Option 3 that covariant return types are not supported just at the definition level . Even with invariant return types the following is perfectly fine:
> class A {
>   function foo(): B { return new B; }
> }
>
> class B extends A {
>   function foo(): B { return new C; }
> }

Yes, this is correct; thank you for the clarification. The phrase
"covariant return types" in the RFC and in my message above refers to
the declared type in the function signature, not the type returned by
the method. The value that is returned can always be subtype of the
declared type.