On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 09:26 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> Hello Sam.
>
> Would you agree in general the function int name() { syntax is
> favored? If you need help working out the grammar for such changes let
> me know. This is something that I think would add value to PHP as a
> whole and would not mind lending some time for.
Yes, this seems to be the most agreed upon.
[modifiers] [type] function name() {
I'm trying to get this to work in the parser right now, but I can't. Do
you know enough to be able to help out with that?
> -Chris
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 12:58 +0200, LAUPRETRE François (P)
> wrote:
> > > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > First is that function
> > > definition and code is usually written by the same person
> in the same
> > > (very small) context, and this person has to be somewhat
> > > absent-minded
> > > to forget what function returns from definition to return
> a
> > > dozen lines
> > > below. Supporting such absent-mindedness with language
> constructs
> > > doesn't appear appropriate.
> >
>
> > Right, return type hinting is useless in such cases, but it
> is interesting when we check whether a method is compatible
> with an implemented interface or an extended/abstract class.
> In this case, both codes are typically not written by the same
> person and specifying the methods' return types in an
> interface makes sense.
>
> This is my number one use, abstract methods that are later
> implemented.
>
> > Francois
>
> >
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
