Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88810
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0A.C2.33697.6AECE165@pb1.pair.com>
References: <0A.C2.33697.6AECE165@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:15:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CABHuAWy3rGvQJM--8_2jQDVPKRQbjespGSNjGZ5WOfmeXByKUg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130cca0edd03b0522211d64
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQSFAtREVWXSBbUkZDXSBWb2lkIFJldHVybiBUeXBlICh2MC4yLCByZcO2cGVuaQ==?=
	=?UTF-8?B?bmcp?=
From: t.carnage@gmail.com (Chris Riley)

--001a1130cca0edd03b0522211d64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 14 October 2015 at 22:52, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Good evening,
>
> 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!
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.S. As it so (fatefully?) happens, I originally introduced this on 14th
> February, and it's now 14th October, so it's been exactly 8 months!
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Hi,

Semantically, I don't believe that there is sufficient difference between
"returns no value" and "returns a value which has been defined as having no
value" for us to care about it. The main difference you get between return
type of null and a return type of void seems to be some extra fatal errors,
for a developer there seems little value.

From a user confusion point of view; PHP currently considers return; and
return null; to be equivalent (in fact some code style checkers will
replace one with the other) If (and only if) a function has a return type
of void these two statements are no longer equivalent - one is a fatal
error one is not. For any other return type specification, return null; and
return; would behave the same. This in itself would be enough for me to be
against adding a return type of void.

(also could someone enable my wiki acc: carnage; sent an email ~a week ago
and haven't heard back yet :()

~C

--001a1130cca0edd03b0522211d64--