On 11/04/2014 04:42 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>> If we used this syntax instead, which wouldn’t disrupt grep:
>>>
>>> public Foo function bar();
>>>
>>> It’d be inconsistent with normal function declarations which would have to
>>> have Foo after function.
>>
>> I don't understand that inconsistency.
>>
>> public Foo function bar() { }
>>
>> looks perfectly sane to me. PHP's syntax was very heavily influenced by
>> C from day 1. In C you have:
>>
>> static int bar() { }
>>
>> In PHP the 'function' keyword indicates what follows is a function.
>> Putting something in between the function keyword and the name of the
>> function would confuse me. To me "function bar()" is inseparable and is
>> equivalent to "bar()" in C which makes the above examples consistent
>> with each other.
>
> Except `static function()` and `static function foo()` already have
> meaning, and if we allowed static return types (very possible) that
> would be ambiguous. This syntax is a no-go.
static isn't a type it is a scope. You want to expand return types to
also cover scopes? How is that in any way useful?
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
