Re: [RFC] $this return type

> On Sep 9, 2021, at 09:47, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > >> On Sep 9, 2021, at 10:26 AM, Flávio Heleno <flaviohbatista@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:27 AM Sebastian Bergmann <sebastian@php.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Am 07.09.2021 um 12:28 schrieb Nikita Popov: >>>> I have some reservations about this (which basically come down to $this >>> not >>>> being a proper "type", so should it be in the type system?) but I can see >>>> the practical usefulness, so I think it's worth discussing this. >>> >>> I am not conviced that there is enough value in this to introduce syntax >>> for it, but if at all, then please not "$this" as the name for a type. >>> >>> Off the top of my head, I think that "same" could make sense. >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >>> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm sorry if I'm being naive, or simply put dumb, but the main difference >> that we're trying >> to achieve with having "$this" (or variations of it) as a valid return type >> as opposed to simply >> using "self" is to ensure that the underlying code is actually doing a >> "return $this" rather >> than returning any other valid "self" instance (such as "return new >> self();")? > > So a *mutable* fluent style vs. an *immutable* fluent style? > > -Mike For clarity, in comparing to self and static… self : the return value must be an instance of the same class that sets this type declaration static : the return value must be an instance of the same class that calls the method with this type declaration $this : the return value must be the same instance as the instance that calls the method with this type declaration Cheers, Ben

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Message signed with OpenPGP signature.asc