On 4/24/14, 10:59 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
My dear Internals friends,
I have spent the last month drafting an RFC that allows return types:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting
Notable items:
- Differences from past RFCs are summarized in the RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/returntypehinting#differences_from_past_rfcs
- The patch includes basic opcache and reflection support. It also has
phpt tests.
- Informal performance tests indicate that the patch did not fubar
performance; if desired a more detailed test can be conducted before voting.
- This RFC does not add, modify, or remove keywords at all; this notably
excludes type-hints for scalars. Supporting scalar type declarations is
outside the scope of this RFC; if you are interested in supporting scalar
type declarations please discuss it elsewhere.
As a friendly reminder, everyone on this list is interested in developing a
better PHP and the definitions of 'better' vary from person to person.
Please be civil and constructive while discussing this RFC. Thank you!
Some thanks, regardless if the RFC is accepted:
- For providing a patch: Joe Watkins.
- For helping me iterate on RFC drafts: Bob Wienand, Nikita Popov and
Anthony Ferrara
- For previous RFCs on this topic: Felipe Pena and Will Fitch. I gleaned
valuable knowledge from your proposals and the discussion around them.
yield [];
}
which generates this error:
Fatal error: Generators may only yield objects, array is not a valid type in %s on line %d
Except Generators can totally yield arrays currently:
function foo() {
yield [];
}
foreach (foo() as $x) print_r($x) . PHP_EOL;
The above works perfectly on 5.5.10, where I just tested it.
So what's with that error condition? Clearly from the RFC we can specify array as a return type, so I don't know why it calls out generators as specially limited.
As I write that I suspect it's because generators actually "return" an interator object, and so the return type of the generator is being interpreted relative to the construction, not iteration, of the generator. That seems like a likely source of confusion, as I would, as a developer, expect to be specifying the type that gets returned from iteration, not from construction, so that my foreach loop (or similar) can rely on the type being returned.
I think this part warrants further consideration. The rest of the RFC I fully look forward to using.
As far as the order of keywords in a closure, what order does Hack use? The rest of the syntax seems based on it, so it seems sensible to follow suit. (I couldn't find that information from 60 seconds on hacklang.org, but it may be there.)
--Larry Garfield