Re: [RFC] Return Type Declarations

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 07:52 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Lazare Inepologlou >> > <linepogl@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > 2014-04-24 17:59 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>: >> > > >> > > My dear Internals friends, >> > >> >> > >> I have spent the last month drafting an RFC that allows return types: >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting >> > >> >> > >> Notable items: >> > >> - Differences from past RFCs are summarized in the RFC: >> > >> >> > >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting#differences_from_past_rfcs >> > >> - The patch includes basic opcache and reflection support. It also >> has >> > >> phpt tests. >> > >> - Informal performance tests indicate that the patch did not fubar >> > >> performance; if desired a more detailed test can be conducted before >> > >> voting. >> > >> - This RFC does not add, modify, or remove keywords at all; this >> notably >> > >> excludes type-hints for scalars. Supporting scalar type declarations >> is >> > >> outside the scope of this RFC; if you are interested in supporting >> scalar >> > >> type declarations please discuss it elsewhere. >> > >> >> > >> As a friendly reminder, everyone on this list is interested in >> developing >> > >> a >> > >> better PHP and the definitions of 'better' vary from person to >> > >> person. >> > >> Please be civil and constructive while discussing this RFC. Thank you! >> > >> >> > >> Some thanks, regardless if the RFC is accepted: >> > >> - For providing a patch: Joe Watkins. >> > >> - For helping me iterate on RFC drafts: Bob Wienand, Nikita Popov >> and >> > >> Anthony Ferrara >> > >> - For previous RFCs on this topic: Felipe Pena and Will Fitch. I >> gleaned >> > >> valuable knowledge from your proposals and the discussion around them. >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > This is a nice and well thought proposal. >> > > >> > > I would like to suggest the addition of the "self" and >> > > "static" pseudo >> > > types. Most IDEs support this through @return syntax: >> > > >> > > class Foo { >> > > /** @return static */ >> > > public function SetBar( $bar ) { >> > > // ... >> > > return $this; >> > > } >> > > } >> > > >> > > With the new syntax, the above could be transformed into this: >> > > >> > > class Foo { >> > > public function SetBar( $bar ) : static { >> > > // ... >> > > return $this; >> > > } >> > > } >> > > >> > >> > As the patch currently stands you can use the type-hint 'self'. >> >> How will this patch work with LSB? >> > > Late static binding is not a feature I am very familiar with. After some > investigation it appears that we curently don't support late static binding > on parameters; this means that I will not support late static binding on > returns either. I want to keep the impact as small as possible. Yep, this RFC is light and that's why it's nice :-) I'm all +1 with it. Keep the impact low as well as adding a nice, more-and-more-expected feature, which keeps BC. What should we ask for next ? :-) You have my support. Julien