Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82718
Return-Path: <francois@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 21441 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2015 10:31:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 15 Feb 2015 10:31:32 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr  
Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:38919] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 47/A1-06835-38570E45 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 05:31:32 -0500
Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115])
	by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5447C4B024D;
	Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:31:18 +0100 (CET)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Andrea Faulds'" <ajf@ajf.me>,
	"'Xinchen Hui'" <laruence@php.net>
Cc: "'PHP Internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <680FB44D-B42D-4898-A28B-FA1C6E4D4D1A@ajf.me> <CABBJUpcMDBHG5Bt_hwrUsYe_FrONFnD2Nqiros_zrbmoESqteg@mail.gmail.com> <58F62ED2-562E-4851-B2FB-2D973732D9DA@ajf.me> 
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:31:28 +0100
Message-ID: <003401d0490a$8eb7b890$ac2729b0$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJarA5HcqMrZRaN+23HbEjTjl9TGQJO6ZrBAtDhoh6bs7drgIAABr4g
Content-Language: fr
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150215-0, 15/02/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Void Return Type
From: francois@php.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Laupretre?=)

Sorry, I forgot that replacing 'void' with 'null' should support 'return
null;' of course. If we don't really enforce 'void', distinguishing this
from 'return;' is inconsistent, IMO.

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De=A0: Fran=E7ois Laupretre [mailto:francois@php.net]
> Envoy=E9=A0: dimanche 15 f=E9vrier 2015 11:29
> =C0=A0: 'Andrea Faulds'; 'Xinchen Hui'
> Cc=A0: 'PHP Internals'
> Objet=A0: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Void Return Type
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> > De=A0: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> > > following codes  still works:
> > >
> > >   $b =3D a();
> > >
> > > so, if you want a void return type, and if you want it to be a =
useful
> feature..
> > >
> > > above expr should be invalid with an error " a() return nothing"
> >
> > I'm not sure about this. PHP has always made functions valid =
rvalues,
for
> > better or for worse. This RFC could make void functions "truly" void
>=20
> What about renaming this hint to 'null', instead of 'void'. I know =
that it
> supports no explicit return and 'return;' with no value but what it =
does
is
> more checking that return value is null, than checking return value is
'void',
> whose concept is not defined yet.
>=20
> It would remove the ambiguity on the fact that the return value is =
used or
> not. The only justification is that, in PHP, not returning an explicit
value, or
> using 'return;' returns null, that's history, period.
>=20
> I think it would make the concept easier to understand and would =
reserve
> the ambiguous 'void' keyword for the future, if it finds a utility one
day.
>=20
> Cheers
>=20
> Fran=E7ois