Re: [RFC][Vote] Return Types

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: >> Hi Pierre and Levi, >> >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: >>> > Hi Simon and Levi, >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Simon J Welsh <simon@welsh.co.nz> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> The tests have it after the use(): >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/997/files#diff-e306c6e99612ba59b00a4fe435b287e5R9 >>> >> >>> >> This was discussed in depth a couple of times in the related threads. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Thank you for the information. It should be in the RFC. IMHO. >>> > I feels natural to have type spec after function parameter definition >>> > rather than >>> > after "use". >>> >>> Please do not change the RFC during votes phase, or re start it. >>> >>> If many of the voters feel like they were voted on something different >>> of what is being discussed here, it may be a good thing to restart it. >>> However I think we all understood it as it is described in this >>> thread. Let update it after the votes or for the docs. >> >> >> Sounds good to me. >> Let's update the RFC after vote. > > According to the previous discussion the return type goes after the > use statement, and this is how it is implemented. There has not been > an unintentional mistake here. > > If you disagree with that decision I am open to discussing it again. > Since it isn't actually mentioned in the RFC (which was an oversight, > I apologize) I'm not sure we'd have to revote on it. Anyone else have > an opinion on this? Addint/editing it means a re vote. I do not think it is necessary at is pretty clear, or I think it is. At the very least, let wait after the vote ended, to see if complains will be raised. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org