I don't know, maybe it does work. But either way I'm not introducing a
new keyword, I changed the patch to reuse the return keyword.

Yes, long strings of keywords:

abstract protected string function dostuff()

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:22 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>         
>         On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:24 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
>         > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Sam Barrow
>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         >         On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:08 -0500, Jeremy Privett
>         wrote:
>         >         > Sam Barrow wrote:
>         >         > > I figured it out, the syntax is now as follows:
>         >         > >
>         >         > > function a($b, $c) returns d {
>         >         > > }
>         >         > >
>         >         > > I'll post an update soon.
>         >         > >
>         >         > >
>         >         > >
>         >         >
>         >         > That's certainly a non-intuitive syntax. How about
>         we take a
>         >         page out of
>         >         > the book of other C-style languages before trying
>         to invent
>         >         something
>         >         > else? I agree with Stas, "return" and "returns"
>         are not part
>         >         of a
>         >         > function definition.
>         >
>         >
>         >         I don't think it's non-intuitive at all, and even
>         so, it's the
>         >         most intuitive we have. This ordering makes more
>         sense to me
>         >         at first glance (in the order I would think about
>         things;
>         >         scope, name, arguments, return).
>         >
>         > im not sure the following has been explicitly proposed, but
>         how about
>         > omitting the 'return' keyword and placing the return type
>         hint before
>         > the function identifier
>         >
>         > function int a($b, $c) {}
>         >
>         
>         
>         This is, but I don't think this is possible, due to confusion
>         with the
>         keywords (public, private, static, abstract, etc). Plus this
>         leads to
>         long strings of keywords.
> 
> There can be no technical reason why this more adopted and understood
> syntax should  not be possible. Adding returns as a keyword would
> completely break tons of code. Why are the proposals on something that
> is so consistent across many languages being changed so obscurely? Why
> a seperate non-intuitive syntax.
> 
> public function int (string $foo) { return 1; }
> 
> Can't we keep the sanity?
>  
> 
>         [ ... ] Plus this leads to
>         long strings of keywords.
> 
> Are you kidding?  strlen('returns int') > strlen('int'); .....
> 
> 
> -Chris


-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to