Re: Return type hinting patch

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:24 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:08 -0500, Jeremy Privett wrote: > > Sam Barrow wrote: > > > I figured it out, the syntax is now as follows: > > > > > > function a($b, $c) returns d { > > > } > > > > > > I'll post an update soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's certainly a non-intuitive syntax. How about we take a > page out of > > the book of other C-style languages before trying to invent > something > > else? I agree with Stas, "return" and "returns" are not part > of a > > function definition. > > > I don't think it's non-intuitive at all, and even so, it's the > most intuitive we have. This ordering makes more sense to me > at first glance (in the order I would think about things; > scope, name, arguments, return). > > im not sure the following has been explicitly proposed, but how about > omitting the 'return' keyword and placing the return type hint before > the function identifier > > function int a($b, $c) {} > This is, but I don't think this is possible, due to confusion with the keywords (public, private, static, abstract, etc). Plus this leads to long strings of keywords. > i think that is most congruent with 'typical' of c style languages, > no ? > > -nathan > >