> > Quite honestly knowing that a function “throws” but not *what* it throws, > is useless. > Now if it were a proposal to add *runtime checked* `throws FooException, > BarTypeError` or similar, I could get behind.
Same here. On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 02:48, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 Apr 2019, at 03:29, M. W. Moe <mo.mu....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks! > > > >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:24 PM G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I don't really see the point of it as you self said this wouldn't add a > >> runtime check, so in what is it different to a comment? > >> More so reusing ! for this will, in my opinion, just lead to confusion > as > >> people will think it negates the function, this is what > >> I would expect it to do at first glance. > >> Also comparing it to the nullable question mark is quite bizarre I find, > >> why not choose the ampersand for references instead? > >> At least it would cover the same "scope", as types have nothing to do > with > >> how a function behaves. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> George P. Banyard > >> > > Quite honestly knowing that a function “throws” but not *what* it throws, > is useless. > > Now if it were a proposal to add *runtime checked* `throws FooException, > BarTypeError` or similar, I could get behind. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
