On 04/26/2016 04:57 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
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 Morrisont
Your "Nullable Types" RFC don't have up to date implementation. You took
ownership on two competing RFCs, but make preference to one.
In our conversation, I took your point 3 times (delaying Nullable in
2015, delaying my RFC for a week (while you have time), sending your RFC
instead of mine, because they proposed almost the same).
I think, it's going to be fair, if now you take my point.
I don't like to argue. You got what you liked.
Now "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" should compete in fair way.
Thanks. Dmitry.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
