Hello internals, During the review of the implementation of the RFC which introduces null and false as standalone types there has been a point raised about the changes made to reflection. [1]
The current implementation is what follows the RFC, namely to make false|null return a ReflectionUnionType instead of a ReflectionNamedType. Because of this, I made the rendering of this type union to be false|null instead of ?false. Moreover, the question is if this union type should not be consistent with other types and produce a ReflectionNamedType, and have all of the nullable types move to ReflectionUnionType at the same time. I don't mind either way, but as this was voted part of the RFC I feel this should be discussed by internals to see if changing the Reflection semantics to not align with the RFC is okay. As there are currently the following options: - Keep as the RFC stated with some minor implementation complexity which will be resolved when the Reflection changes are made to all other nullable types. - Ignore the Reflection changes of the RFC and align the union type with the current behaviour - Break BC and change all nullable types to return a ReflectionUnionType (I just added the last option for the sake of completeness, but don't think breaking BC is the way to go here). Best regards, George P. Banyard [1] https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7546#discussion_r837900447
