On 10/29/2015 08:55 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> "void" or "null" as return type would give a 100% guarantee that every >> possible >> implementation of a given interface won't return any random value. Then it >> would >> make no difference if the returned value is being used or not, as it >> would always >> be null. >> >> So, it obviously solves the problem presented. There's not much to dismiss >> here. > > That's what I am having issue with. I don't see the case where such > guarantee is useful. If you're not using the return value, why do you > care if it's always null or sometimes null and sometimes baloney > sandwich? If you need always null, you have it: null. You don't need to > use return value of a function for it.
I agree with you Stas, but I still voted yes on this RFC as I don't see the harm in having it. It is more of a hint for the compiler/static analyzers for them to spew warnings/errors than it is a useful feature at runtime. Enough people consider it a missing check mark on the feature list for it to be added. -Rasmus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
