Hi,
Can't resist jumping into this discussion, but when I first read
both RFC's, I found them quite complementary. I was actually a
bit tempted to combine them into one just as a writing exercise
for my self (wanted to train on writing RFC's).
My suggestion would be that you merge them into one and put
it into vote quickly, maybe having you both as authors or one of
you taking the lead? And again, sorry if I jump into the discussion
uninvited.
/Regards //Björn Larsson/
Den 2016-04-28 kl. 21:16, skrev Dmitry Stogov:
Levi, I provided an implementation for your RFC on February 2015, and I would
be glad if your RFC was accepted that time.
Bit since that time you block it in respect to "Union Types"
See conversation at PR https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1045
I would be also glad if your "Nullable Types" RFC was accepted now, but I don't
trust in your intention to support it.
________________________________________
From: morrison.l...@gmail.com <morrison.l...@gmail.com> on behalf of Levi Morrison
<le...@php.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:02:20 PM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: Joe Watkins; internals; Tom Worster
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for
only return values
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
Levi, I don't understand, why do you keep trying to own "Nullable Types" RFC, if you like
completely different "Union Types".
I don't understand; I wrote the RFC. What do you mean, "keep trying to
own" it? I wrote both Nullable Types and Union Types. Some view those
RFC's as competing, but they can also be orthogonal. I see the value
in having both.
