Re: Return Type Hinting for Methods RFC
| From: | André Rømcke | Date: | Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:31:59 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Return Type Hinting for Methods RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-57065@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
2011/12/23 John Crenshaw <johncrenshaw@priacta.com>
> > From: Will Fitch [mailto:will.fitch@gmail.com]
> >
> > I would like to take this opportunity to query on a consensus:
> >
> > Would you prefer to allow methods with type hinted return values to
> return null at will, or add a marker noting that it *may* return null?
> >
> > Example: Return null at will
> >
> > public ArrayIterator getIterator()
> > {
> > // something happened, will return null
> > return null;
> > }
> >
> > Example: Return only if identified as such
> >
> > public ArrayIterator? getIterator()
> > {
> > return null;
> > }
>
> I hate the syntax in the second example (using ?).
>
It looks strange, but easy to get used to. Two examples from C#:
public decimal? Grade { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> Time { get; set; }
>
> IMO allowing null should be the default unless specifically disallowed.
I disagree for the reasons mentioned by for instance Robert.
Type hints should be strict/explicit or not done at all.