Hi George, > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/7546#discussion_r837900447
Thanks for asking (even if voted). On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:01 PM Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote: > Probably best with consistency? > > > - Ignore the Reflection changes of the RFC and align the union type with > the current behaviour > > This one, specifically. > I agree with Marco (who I know works on reflection-related projects). To expand a bit: when reading the RFC, "the notable exception that `null|false` will produce a ReflectionUnionType instead of a ReflectionNamedType contrary to other `null|T` types" seemed legit because - `T|false` currently always produces a ReflectionUnionType - `null|T` producing a ReflectionNamedType (like `?T`) was only decided *for backwards-compatibility reasons* [ https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types_v2#reflection] (moreover the initial RFC [https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null-standalone-type] only proposed standalone `null`, not `false`, so didn't allow `?false`) but now looking at the implementation, I don't like the special casing. Regards, -- Guilliam Xavier
