On 14/04/16 10:59, Davey Shafik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Levi Morrison wrote:
As alluded to in an earlier email today[1] I am now moving the
Nullable Types RFC[2] to the discussion phase. In a nutshell this RFC
proposes syntax for declaring a type to alternatively be null.
There is a decision that needs to be made: does the question mark go
before or after the type name?
function (?Foo $foo);
function (Foo? $foo);
There are precedents in several languages for each position. Some
relevant issues to where the question mark goes are noted in the
RFC[3].
Please put it where HHVM puts it: in front of it. Other languages are
less of an issue than a syntax that's already used in a somewhat PHP
language.
As to the rest of the RFC: LGTM!
I much prefer the "Nullable Foo" (?Foo) to "Foo or Null" (Foo?). I find it
easier to read.
However, I am not a fan of introducing both this and the "Null" type for
union types — this should be the only way to create nullable types. We
already have too many things that are possible in more than one way.
As it sits, this is purely syntactic sugar (when taken in tandem with union
types) and [if] we agree that it is good, then let us just forgo the other
syntax entirely. I'll add a little about that on the appropriate thread.
- Davey
Also agree, the "nullable foo" reads better and has the advantage of
compatibility
with HHVM. The easier we make it for people to switch interpreters (and
develop
software which works on both interpreters) the better for PHP as a whole.
Also agree that we don't need null union types if we have nullable types.
- Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
