Re: [PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

Hi Matthew, In this specific case (when considering an interface), @return self is wrong, as there is no way to return purely an interface instance. You just can't instantiate an interface. However, we should never assume that @return self is wrong in all scenarios, and IDEs should make sure

Re: [PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 13:54, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > > is such a change > considered a *fix* (because it updates the syntax to match intent) or a > *clarification* (which would require a vote)? IMO that's a fix; no vote needed. -- Paul M. Jones

Re: [PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

Right, I wasn't thinking clearly. Please disregard! :) On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM Woody Gilk wrote: > Colin, because it doesn't. > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016, 14:00 Colin O'Dell wrote: > >> What about `@return $this` instead? >>

Re: [PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

I've always considered the `@return self` to be a bug in the PSR-7 and as such would be a *fix*. -- Woody Gilk http://about.me/shadowhand On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > Hi! > > I've been reviewing pull requests against the http-message

[PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

Hi! I've been reviewing pull requests against the http-message repository, and had given my thumbs-up to the following: - https://github.com/php-fig/http-message/pull/50 That pull request update all `@return self` annotations to `@return static`. To summarize the discussion, `@return static` is

Re: FIG Secretary Nomination

Yes, I accept this nomination. Thanks again for your assistance with this Jordi. On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:09:20 UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Sorry, I'd not posted the official opening of nominations (It was sitting > as a draft in my inbox). There are other candidates but I imagine

Re: [PSR-12] Enforce short type keywords

https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/791 On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:40:41 PM UTC+3, Michael Cullum wrote: > > That would certainly be more in scope yes and I'd no longer have any > objections but I wouldn't be in favour either; I'd say I'd then be neutral > on the change. > > -- >

Re: A message from the Zend Framework CR team

On 02/08/2016 13:45, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: To me its important that anyone on this list does not see the -1 from Jackalope on the expulsion vote is considered an endorsement with Paul’s discussion style. I have already contacted him before when I wanted to give him concrete feedback. At this