Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Ensure correct magic methods' signatures when typed

Hello Gabriel, >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/magic-methods-signature > > RFC and implementation have been updated. > There are a few things I don't understand from the RFC, let me list from the examples. > This RFC proposes to introduce the following signatures checks when magic methods are typed: My general question is: what does this mean exactly? > /** @return mixed */ > Foo::__call(string $name, array $arguments); > /** @return mixed */ > Foo::__callStatic(string $name, array $arguments); > /** @return mixed */ > Foo::__get(string $name); Does this mean we won't be allowed to declare __call($name, $arguments);? This looks against LSP to me. > Foo::__clone(): void; > /** @param mixed $args */ > Foo::__construct($args): void; > Foo::__destruct(): void; Is void going to be mandatory now? This should be specified in the RFC I think. If it's about to allow void where it wasn't allowed, I'm personally not convinced it's a good idea to open one more code-style war on this topic. When there is only one way to declare something, there is no need to come to any agreement about the code style. That's a win. > Foo::__isset(string $name): bool; > Foo::__unset(string $name): void; Same comment about LSP, but also about the type: isn't it allowed to have integers as keys? How does this play with strict_type and array access? > /** @param mixed $value */ > Foo::__set(string $name, $value): void; Is the return now going to be mandatory? And the BIG question: is all this worth the BC break? Thanks, Nicolas