Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106868 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19697 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2019 12:06:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2019 12:06:30 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F952C0465 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 02:40:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS12876 195.154.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from smtp.opensides.be (smtp.opensides.be [195.154.20.141]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 02:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.opensides.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7966FB0C8 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:40:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at opensides.be Received: from smtp.opensides.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.opensides.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id p30r_r3iTOkH for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:40:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mcmic-probook.opensides.be (63.120.199.77.rev.sfr.net [77.199.120.63]) by smtp.opensides.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 826DDFB0C2 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:40:02 +0200 (CEST) To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 11:39:58 +0200 Message-ID: <1686643.PblvKQRnJp@mcmic-probook> Organization: OpenSides User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.9.0-9-amd64; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 From: come@opensides.be (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4me?= Chilliet) Le mercredi 4 septembre 2019, 10:26:09 CEST Nikita Popov a =C3=A9crit : > As an experiment, I'm submitting this RFC as a GitHub pull request, to > evaluate whether this might be a better medium for RFC proposals in the > future. It would be great if we could keep the discussion to the GitHub > pull request for the purpose of this experiment (keep in mind that you can > also create comments on specific lines in the proposal, not just the > overall discussion thread!) Of course, you can also reply to this mail > instead. The final vote will be held in the wiki as usual. Huge "no" from me on using github for discussing RFCs. Huge "yes" on the RFC content. > * Only supports "false" as a pseudo-type, not "true". I think it would make sense to support true as well as I=E2=80=99ve seen a = lot of cases of functions returning either an error string or TRUE on succe= ss. So that would be string|true. C=C3=B4me