Re: [VOTE] Deprecate returning values from __construct() and __destruct()

Hi On 6/15/26 16:56, Levi Morrison wrote:

Tim, sorry if I missed it in the discussion and RFC: is there any plan to allow declaring function __construct(): void at the same time? Since: 1. We are going to actively enforce that they don't return anything, 2. and returning void is the correct declaration for such functions (and I would argue null as well but I don't care too much about this, I debated mentioning it at all because it's a bit off in the weeds), doesn't it make sense to also allow declaring a void return at the same time?

Allowing an explicit : void return is not part of the RFC. I intentionally focused on the deprecation to keep the RFC focused on the “important bits”, namely removing this confusing behavior. That's also why __clone() is intentionally left to future scope, since the situation there is slightly different. It definitely makes sense to me to align __clone() with __construct() in one way or another, though, since they effectively only differ in s/new/clone/ for their intended use. Best regards Tim Düsterhus