Re: Soft-reserve "void" class name

On May 21, 2015 6:45 PM, <flaupretre@free.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > > De: "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> > > > > For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like "numeric", so > > that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release. > > "Soft" here means that we only document these names as being reserved and > > don't throw an error when they're used. > > > > I'd like to add "void" to this list, so we have the option to introduce a > > void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this > > should be called "void" or "null" - this discussion should be held > > when an > > RFC comes up, however we need to keep both options open until then. > > (Currently only "null" is reserved.) > > May I repeat my arguments to have this reservations enforced by a warning message ? 'Soft' reservation > is easier but it is not enough. If we give a special meaning to one of these names in a 7.x release, > we will introduce a BC break, whatever the documentation states, because that's the definition of a BC > break : software that works fine in 7.0 and does not work the same in 7.x. Do we want to guarantee BC on > minor versions ? If we don't enforce a check on reserved class names, IMO, we can't. Once again, this is > a short-term half-baked solution we'll pay later. > > PS: If you're OK, I am ready to implement the check. Also I am fine to reserve it, I am not in favor of doing any time in 7.x. If it means to do it now, then let do it now. Cheers, Pierre