Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88798
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0A.C2.33697.6AECE165@pb1.pair.com> <561ED07E.4060809@gmail.com> <CAFMT4NpETZp5p+yVmUNZHjKamkA1niapAs10fCzd-6O0jHk4nA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NpETZp5p+yVmUNZHjKamkA1niapAs10fCzd-6O0jHk4nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:55:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CANeXGWVQ9zgxyhktWm+e31Dyy3g_3X7Rtx2eXJ7VCaVnqcG=4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d63cebeeecf05221874b6
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQSFAtREVWXSBbUkZDXSBWb2lkIFJldHVybiBUeXBlICh2MC4yLCByZcO2cGVuaQ==?=
	=?UTF-8?B?bmcp?=
From: korvinszanto@gmail.com (Korvin Szanto)

--047d7b5d63cebeeecf05221874b6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:47 PM Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> I'm reviving my Void Return Type RFC, this time for PHP 7.1:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/void_return_type
> >>
> >> Please read it and tell me your thoughts!
> >
> > I still see no point in this, as every PHP function actually returns
> > something (at least null). So this type would not actually be right and
> > would not reflect what actually is happening.
>
> I agree that `void` doesn't make sense given that we document that
> `return;` will return null[1].  If the union types RFC[2] passes it
> makes sense to allow `Foo | null` which allows something of type `Foo`
> or `null`. To me it makes sense that if you then remove `Foo` you are
> left with `null`, not `void`. My personal recommendation because of
> this would be to use `null` for the return type and instead of `void`.
>

Isn't null supposed to mean the absense of a value and not take the place
of a value in PHP though? Didn't we just have a long conversation about
this in a thread about PHPSadness?

If I capture the result of a "void" method and check if my result variable
with isset(), I'll get false. This sounds like it's void of value to me.


> Also, I do not think this feature is pointless. For instance, it has
> value in interfaces. Declaring that a method does not return a value
> means implementors cannot accidentally return something. This is
> better than just documenting that it should not be done.
>

This is what I was thinking too, I'm not sure that there's much value
beyond that


>   [1]: http://php.net/manual/en/function.return.php
>   [2]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--047d7b5d63cebeeecf05221874b6--