On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > hi Levi, > > It looks like your "work" on "Nullable Types" RFC was intended to win time > for this patch and block "Nullable Types" again. > Actually, you have been blocking it for more than a year :( > > I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types". > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types > > At least, it has up to date implementation. > > We discussed this internally 2-3 weeks ago, and my politeness (or/and > stupidity) allowed you to pass your version for common discussion. > Now I can see your real reason :( > > Both "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" may make sense, and both should be > voted at the same time. > Tomorrow is time to start voting. Right? > > Thanks. Dmitry.
Dmitry, I agree that union types and nullable types should be voted at the same time. Union types is a large RFC and didn't have an implementation until now. I think it is important that we have an implementation to experiment wotj. I hope you can see how having an implementation to experiment with is essential for both RFCs. Please do not move any type related RFCs to voting; I am not attempting to sabatoge nullable types. Please do not make such accusations. Levi Morrison -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
