Comment by wambotron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wambotron | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I haven't looked this over too much but I'm curious as to why they did this: <?hh class MyClass { const int MyConst = 0; private string $x = ''; public function increment(int $x): int { $y = $x + 1; return $y; } }

instead of this: <?hh class MyClass { const MyConst: int = 0; private $x: string = ''; public function increment(int $x): int { $y = $x + 1; return $y; } }

The first seems inconsistent to me. Especially coming from AS3/Haxe where the function return value is indicated in the same manner.

(I work on Hack at FB)

  function f(int $x): float { ... }

For property and constant declarations, we chose to be consistent with the parameter typehint syntax (int $x) instead of the function return type annotation (float).

A nice effect of this decision is that this allows us to change:

  class C {
    private int $x = 20;
    public function __construct(int $x,) {
      $this->x = $x;
    }
  }

into the shorter and cleaner:

  class C {
    public function __construct(
      private int $x = 20,
    ) {}
  }

Would be more consistent to suffix the types in function decls as well, e.g. `increment($x: int)` vs. `increment(int $x)`.

Yep. So much weirdness here when they had a really good shot at "fixing" it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com