On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > On 04/26/2016 05:19 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: >>> >>> Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 02:37 >>> To: internals >>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types >>> >>> Internals, >>> >>> Joe Watkins and Bob Weinand have worked out a [proof-of-concept patch >>> for union types][1]. Please go download it and experiment with it. >>> >>> A few things to note: >>> >>> * This patch includes intersection types. However, a type expression >>> must be either a union type or an intersection type; it doesn't >>> support both such as `Array | (Countable & Traversable)`. >>> * This patch adds `null`, `true` and `false` for type declarations. >>> * This patch includes conversion rules for weak types. >>> * It does not have short-hand for unions with null (`?Foo` being `Foo | >>> Null`) >>> >>> These features (or omitted ones) are not necessarily what will be >>> voted on. Rather this patch allows us to experiment with these >>> features in code. This experience should be helpful for us to solidify >>> how we actually feel about these features. >>> >>> I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for >>> scalar types as it has been a point of discussion. >>> >>> [1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1887 >> >> Hey Dmitry, >> >> Please, do not accuse us of blocking the nullables. This wasn't >> intentional and rather a coincidence that we provided a patch right now. >> First we wanted to concentrate our forces on getting a great 7.0 out >> before starting this RFC (as it didn't make it in time for going into 7.0 >> too as we waited for result on scalar types in general first). >> Then, as you're aware Levi had absolutely no time for a few months… Now, >> he has time to manage things and we could move ahead quickly and write the >> patch up. > > I know, we all like to make our best for PHP. > Sorry, if I was too emotional. >> >> I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" or >> "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through right >> now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority dislikes. > > I didn't exactly get, what do you propose. One RFC with voting for > "Nullable" or "Union"? > > Thanks. Dmitry. > >> >> Thanks, >> Bob > > > > > >
I believe the intention here is to decide whether we do the short-hand syntax for nullable types or only the long-form. I can understand the rationale of not having both or at least dis-allowing the syntax to mix them. For example, I don't think anyone really likes allowing this: `?Array | Travsersable` as . However, if the union types RFC does not pass then it seems odd (to me at least) to use the expression `Foo | Null` instead of `?Foo`, but I know Bob would like the long-form in all cases, hence why he would like a vote. Joe seems to just want nullables to have an outcome so it is no longer blocking typed properties. Is that a correct summary, Bob and Joe? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
