Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101451 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67778 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2017 09:16:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Dec 2017 09:16:35 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.31.75.76 76.75-31-62.static.virginmediabusiness.co.uk Received: from [62.31.75.76] ([62.31.75.76:14053] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 73/EE-47595-179574A5 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2017 04:16:33 -0500 Message-ID: <73.EE.47595.179574A5@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <72392123-d37b-26df-6886-218f48205f8a@fleshgrinder.com> <58A5ABDF-AA25-46D4-83E7-4DE72E3DFF5E@gmail.com> <757270790.33iDQ9MZ2V@vulcan> <4b55eed1-8656-ff70-e4e9-ad5e40213405@rhsoft.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:16:27 -0000 Lines: 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3564.1216 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3564.1216 X-Posted-By: 62.31.75.76 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Scalar Pseudo-type From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston") wrote in message news:f48976dd-589f-e88e-37ba-38096c3a3602@rhsoft.net... > > > >Am 29.12.2017 um 09:04 schrieb Tony Marston: >> wrote in message news:4b55eed1-8656-ff70-e4e9-ad5e40213405@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" >> >> You are missing the point. If an RFC is so badly written that someone >> does not understand it, or understand what benefits it is supposed to >> provide, then there is no point in up-voting it > >if i don't undrstand it i don't vote at all - that's the point > >not up >not down If you can't understand it then you cannot tell what benefit it gives to the greater PHP community, and if you cannot see that it provides any benefit then you should vote it DOWN. Common sense should dictate that you only vote it UP when you are convinced that it will provide something of benefit. If you don't vote at all you are admitting that you are clueless, or don't care, in which case you are not preventing a bad idea from being accepted. If it later turns out that it was a crock of sh*t then you will be partly to blame because you didn't have the intelligence to see it as such and didn't speak up. If you don't understand an RFC then not only do you not understand the benefits that it can provide, you also don't understand the damage that it can cause. -- Tony Marston