On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:40 PM Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Using the same syntax for type information that is guaranteed to be true > (existing run-time checks) and type information that is "advisory only" > (new checks for optional static analysis) means users can no longer have > confidence in that type information. If "syntax only" solution was temporary then warning users through some kind of opt-in mechanism (like with strict_types=1) may be enough - that way users will know that generics type information is "advisory only" and that this might change in the future. In some other languages (Kotlin) there are opt-in mechanism for experimental features - ones that are possibly incomplete, unstable or non-final, and it's working quite well for them. On the other hand, I can see a "third way": if the problem with current > static analysis conventions is that they have to be parsed out of a > string-based docblock, we can provide *dedicated* syntax, without > unifying it with the standard type syntax. For instance, some of the > earlier discussions around introducing attributes suggested reflection > expose the AST of the attributes arguments, rather than the resolved > expressions, allowing them to act a bit like Rust's "hygienic macros". > If that was added as an optional mode, you might be able to do something > like this: > The community has just now decided on the PHPDoc syntax for generics, has just started widely adopting them in packages and has just got first-party support from PHPStorm. I doubt that migrating to yet another temporary solution (one that still doesn't address all of the concerns) is a good idea right now.
