Re: [RFC] Nullable Types

> Note that the same /would/ be possible with union types if given precedence: > > function fn(): int|false {} false is currently not supported in the union_types rfc. Regards Thomas Fleshgrinder wrote on 21.04.2016 21:33: > On 4/21/2016 6:33 PM, Thomas Bley wrote: >> Hello Tom, >> >> with default return value I mean to return a certain value if nothing else is >> returned (similar to method parameters with a default value). >> >> example 1: >> >> declare(strict_types=0); >> >> function my_strpos(string $haystack, string $needle): int = false { >> return 42; // return 42 >> return false; // return false >> return true; // return 1 >> return; // return false >> } >> >> example 2: >> >> declare(strict_types=1); >> >> function my_strpos(string $haystack, string $needle): int = false { >> return 42; // return 42 >> return false; // return false >> return true; // fatal error >> return; // return false >> } >> > > I definitely do not like the equal sign in there because it goes against > all my mathematical knowledge; an int is false?!? > > Note that the same /would/ be possible with union types if given precedence: > > function fn(): int|false {} > > That being said, it is way too magic! A return without an argument is > *void* and has to result in a TypeError. Really, start to think > about > the types as /checked annotations/ ... > > /** > * @return int|false > */ > function fn() {} > > function fn(): int|false {} > > ... are equivalent and the former does not suddenly return *false* on > its own and hell it shouldn't. > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger > >