Hi! > C++11 adds suffixed types for returns despite having prefixed types > for everything else, including previous return types.
C++ does it for entirely different reasons, related to scoping, and it still has "auto" type at the beginning. In any case, I'd be very vary taking late C++ hacks as a guide for syntax, as advanced C++ syntax is not something I would recommend as an example of clarity. > 3) Claiming compatibility for things which aren't proposed is meaningless. > > People have already asked for support for static return types; doing People asked for a lot of things, it doesn't mean it makes sense. "static" as return type doesn't, since it does not specify any type at all - it just says "I will return a type that is this class or derived from this class" - which is the same as saying 'self'. There's no additional information one can gather from 'static' declaration which is not in 'self' declaration, and I see no use case to ever use it. > `<return_type> "function" <identifier> "( <parameter_list> ")` would > then be ambiguous. This is not some pie-in-the sky issue. It's not, it's a non-issue at all, since "static" does not make sense in that context. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
