Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101431 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68906 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2017 23:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Dec 2017 23:59:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lists@rhsoft.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lists@rhsoft.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lists@rhsoft.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 91.118.73.15 mail.thelounge.net Received: from [91.118.73.15] ([91.118.73.15:40213] helo=mail.thelounge.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F2/26-47595-C75854A5 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:59:58 -0500 Received: from srv-rhsoft.rhsoft.net (Authenticated sender: h.reindl@thelounge.net) by mail.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE MTA) with ESMTPSA id 3z76CY1FY5zXMP for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:59:53 +0100 (CET) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <72392123-d37b-26df-6886-218f48205f8a@fleshgrinder.com> <58A5ABDF-AA25-46D4-83E7-4DE72E3DFF5E@gmail.com> <757270790.33iDQ9MZ2V@vulcan> Message-ID: <4b55eed1-8656-ff70-e4e9-ad5e40213405@rhsoft.net> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:59:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <757270790.33iDQ9MZ2V@vulcan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: de-CH Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Scalar Pseudo-type From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net") Am 29.12.2017 um 00:21 schrieb Larry Garfield: > Correct. Union types I've always seen presented as offering both union and > intersection. There are cases where union is great, and where it's kinda > silly. There are cases where intersect is great, and where it's kinda silly. > > Most of the anti- arguments I've seen for "union types" have fixated on "int && > string is meaningless, and Foo || Bar is bad design, so union types are bad!" > Entirely ignoring the flip side, which is int || string (valid use cases) and > Foo && Bar (many many valid use cases) well, that explains why the same person which hase a usecase for a "scalar" pseudo-type donw-votes https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types but it makes his vote not logical at all frankly the only valid reasons to down-vote something should be technical ones which matters for the PHP core itself and not "i don't understand a feature hence nobody should have it"