Probably best with consistency? > - Ignore the Reflection changes of the RFC and align the union type with the current behaviour
This one, specifically. I'd love to see all nullable types become `ReflectionUnionType(ReflectionNamedType($t), ReflectionNamedType(null))`, but that would be a BC break for later on :-) Marco Pivetta https://twitter.com/Ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/ On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 13:58, G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
