Hi, I'm still not sure why we are using void as the return type and not null. Null matches behaviour, void just adds another keyword without value.
~C On 30 October 2015 at 04:33, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: > 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 > >
