Re: Return Type Hinting for Methods RFC

Sent from my iPhone On Dec 23, 2011, at 6:32 PM, "André Rømcke" <ar@ez.no> wrote: 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; } If it is decided that we continue down the road of limiting nullable returns, and want to add an indicator, what about something like this: public nullable ArrayIterator getIterator() If the nullable token isn't declared, it can't return null. > > 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.