Thanks for the feedback!
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022, 09:33 Claude Pache, <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is very common for fluent class methods to have a verbose `return
> $this;` ending in their body.
> But If you have declared `self` as return type into a non-static class
> method you have only two options to return:
>
> - the $this object
> - another instance of the same class or subclass
>
> ... in order to avoid a return type error.
>
>
> It is still two options, and it is not clear in general which one to pick.
> You could also say that, if you have `object` as return type, there are two
> options to avoid a return type error: either return the `$this` object, or
> return another object.
>
Yes but declaring `self` is more strict than `object`.
And talking about the word itself... Declaring to return (your-)`self` but
you could return someone-else of the same type as you.
But it is ok, it refers to the class name not the instance. just semantic.
My proposal is to set the instruction `return $this;` as optional for
> non-static class methods with `self` declared as return type.
>
>
> I’d rather have a syntax saying explicitly that you want to return $this,
> rather than letting the interpreter guess what you meant. The obvious one
> is:
>
> ```php
> public function hit(): $this { $this->counter++; }
> ```
>
> Here, there is only one possible return value, and therefore the `return`
> instruction might be reasonably omitted.
>
Return `$this` is a valid alternative indeed. It is an explicit subclass of
returning `self` which has a default return object, itself.
