Re: [RFC][Discussion] Return Type Variance Checking

> On 28 Nov 2014, at 09:31, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > > I prefer option (3) - invariant return types. > Actually, return type compatibility check should follow all the rules for > parameter type compatibility check (may be even reuse or share the code). No, it shouldn't match parameters, that'd break type safety. What's safe for parameters is the opposite of what's safe for return types. The exception is invariance, which is safe for both. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/