Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107317 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24034 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2019 22:27:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2019 22:27:11 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8702CD5EC for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:06:10 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id p10so3134519qkg.8 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:06:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ovGHQ4xI0SN00+jlWtOdDnjO+4VGmaLusJvlJYeniII=; b=NUB8jOnA9IzJaDNlq5qLXgLV817/FGm7NoUMDTBBL6+gI0ZjVui4NygYq7c2zcQf+4 6RNMUoZVMan0bDud/7VdvxXPxn5sZzpaBhwKmqlWLXh5Cl+P8kpfcc7WkU6fDiUnBR/5 OdhIonErR5JdQITXLvKJJkiZIVteurjDJJnNdL5HpQPRoKQAYdEqRGhUKxeRhWusIDv0 Xql6oV8oMEehkNAZoOJg9SmHk7zdtUZv8hrIS222BcZRQ4bkGcRvngH5FzafIVTNlFdi dEKcExExry9BPYh6hUPbaeAlN38tdf4rUNwQK58S/yLMay2ENhQaKrijrAL2+Re5bQ7c qQuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUSOgzdAm9EYuUMczqg5JFGHpXpExF1+UxIQi0Imy37liVUN8u6 fV7vx5b3+Oitx5nmGgDVkUDUKUC6ljNvit+YFabn2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7l5NVKi5ZLZtL5svH+Znf+W2YmKXnL44ecjyIpXT9+Te6gRrRSeAtaGE6DYmeGb/0pLawQSAvOJtBCeqifWQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:24b:: with SMTP id q11mr1578250qkn.440.1569355569289; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:06:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1544E25D-630F-4E02-BCF1-1A0DEF1EBD60@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1544E25D-630F-4E02-BCF1-1A0DEF1EBD60@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:05:57 -0500 Message-ID: To: Claude Pache Cc: Benjamin Morel , Nikita Popov , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003bfa400593521151" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types v2 From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) --0000000000003bfa400593521151 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:24 PM Claude Pache wrote: > The choice of supporting precisely the two literal values `null` and `false` > is not arbitrary: They are the two values that are the most often used as > sentinel values (for indicating failure or absence). It is true that `true` is > also sometimes used as sentinel value (more rarely and not among the > internal functions), but the same can be said of other literal values > (one of your examples includes `0`). > While I personally think `false` makes sense as an allowed "type", I also don't want to see the union types RFC get held up on such a tiny detail. I would propose either of the following alternatives: 1/ Remove `false` from the proposal. It can always be added at a later time, but not taken away. 2/ Make this detail a sub-vote. I would suggest that this sub-vote should also be subject to a 2/3 majority in order to pass. -Sara --0000000000003bfa400593521151--