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

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:07 PM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le 14 avr. 2020 à 16:54, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com> > a écrit : > > > > I'm just not sold on allowing "void" on __construct, because the very > concept of a return type on a constructor is ... void, and also because of > the code style choices this will open (and the CS "wars" I mentioned). > > > > This issue is not specific to magic method like __construct(). It is the > whole concept of “void” as return type which is, say, “problematic”. > > In fact, “void” is not really a return type. It is a way to state that the > method is not supposed to return anything, which means, as you said very > well, that “the very concept of return type on [this method] is void”. > > That might be a reason to reject the concept of “void” as return type. Or > to revive https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance < > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow-void-variance> . But again, > the issue is > orthogonal to the fact that this particular method is magic, and we should > not cherry-pick and reject the concept of “void” for __construct() and > similar magic methods only. Constructors not having a return type is standard behavior across most (all?) languages. You can't specify a constructor return type in C++. You can't specify one in C#. You can't specify one in Java. Off-hand, I can't name a language that both has a first-class constructor concept (Rust's "new" idiom does not count) and specifies a return type on it. It would naturally follow that, yes, you can't specify a constructor return type in PHP either, just like we enforce right now. Unless we have some strong reason to deviate from standard behavior that I do not see? Regards, Nikita