Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88822 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 35188 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2015 16:20:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Oct 2015 16:20:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=t.carnage@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=t.carnage@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: t.carnage@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.169 mail-qk0-f169.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.169] ([209.85.220.169:33502] helo=mail-qk0-f169.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0B/47-23021-462DF165 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:20:52 -0400 Received: by qkas79 with SMTP id s79so41747193qka.0 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Z4tIhc5BD0moiF4zUtAez7dcAnneBxjkyWAy5byPssw=; b=w6plW0lZDOebdfIvHfuw2ux1pC5DT9knSeVsHwvrJM3GEMSBpmNZ35ucbH3rv7Pj7j 3RoOUsgmKmB0lEWEBj2FgS5MuymjD5Yf8OccHmKgL84+ckjUtcLV/161E+yaKPK0EahF FtUPYTnU/06SeJRS/9oxJoBq/L67oqTrmpvO6aADvldJQELvgleWDh+kp1XZ/4c8S41x Dz4p+IJwu7tVqubovN5eZt5gTAZkjBJpE7HOeXqZEtruzwGMr65+vmh+TPnzqKZdaQoM WxwDo61TbEHINif8Df2h1Rk7pr23E3O19WIMZOJ3TvWU3QCqk1GmyVnqDK7CGAM0ylCo sOug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.112.162 with SMTP id ir2mr13009206wjb.40.1444926049852; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.143.8 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7C.D4.23021.A07CF165@pb1.pair.com> References: <0A.C2.33697.6AECE165@pb1.pair.com> <561ED07E.4060809@gmail.com> <561EE2F1.7050305@garfieldtech.com> <26.08.33697.F95EE165@pb1.pair.com> <561EFE73.3060602@garfieldtech.com> <7C.D4.23021.A07CF165@pb1.pair.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:20:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: Andrea Faulds Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130cca0eda4800522270f53 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQSFAtREVWXSBbUkZDXSBWb2lkIFJldHVybiBUeXBlICh2MC4yLCByZcO2cGVuaQ==?= =?UTF-8?B?bmcp?= From: t.carnage@gmail.com (Chris Riley) --001a1130cca0eda4800522270f53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 15 October 2015 at 16:32, Andrea Faulds wrote: > In a sense, what this RFC offers might be called a compromise. It enforces > the rules of `void` within the function, but at the end of the day the > caller still gets a null out of it since that's what PHP's always done. > > > If this truly is the case, then all you get over hinting void as the return type instead of null is a fatal error for return null; Sure you can argue for capturing intent but realistically the difference in intent between 'returns no value' and 'does not return a value' is something for philosophers to argue over not programmers. ;) --001a1130cca0eda4800522270f53--