Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107737 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 61981 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2019 23:23:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2019 23:23:12 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69EA2D1FC3 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:11:11 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS3265 194.109.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net [194.109.24.21]) (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 ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:983:6fc5:1:dc66:95e4:a02e:32e8] ([IPv6:2001:983:6fc5:1:dc66:95e4:a02e:32e8]) by smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id PvFCiSSqGfrRWPvFEim2pq; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:11:09 +0100 To: Nikita Popov , Dmitry Stogov Cc: PHP internals References: Message-ID: <9b47c56a-d619-4694-a589-3b351203d664@xs4all.nl> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:11:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfGwtP0Au/PZFXgyaZl1EUZsMnRezbmqNeU2zc+/BbW+p7i2LmXPERPLQgAqSbSJCxLdSCSK+U47iz7RNPV2ptk6LK68AB56+XKME9rhRaq7+Ov5/zRbN v9jEkI7h6CfgKk71XBtN8/S7xRix0w/ahw/4QqMyNmLI210hbfTR1q8kgTRnxtqBrITJClsaKzK73pzL//r1rJ/nSNySm0DGVe9Nf1NtHG2en9FDVfe5Ekvb XdjFHdojw0R3J/DDzoc+JsnSCS912pnZobYxHIQl+XNsP2kD8FmEnKi4rTqSlWLCB1ebh7/LIBLIB3KSMsbRh3Hp1MqUa0LWYvSsCFMGrvs= X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Union Types v2 From: d.takken@xs4all.nl (Dik Takken) On 25-10-19 12:22, Nikita Popov wrote: > I do think that performance considerations are important when it comes to > new typing features (which is why, for example, we have categorically > rejected a "typed arrays" implementation that has to check all array > elements), but don't see union types are particular problematic in that > regard, beyond what we already have. While union types barely seem to add to the cost of type checking, I also understand the general sentiment: Type checks can be expensive, should we really add more? Perhaps it might be an idea to wait a little before starting the vote to show the cost going down as more optimization work is done. Just to build confidence with those who are hesitant to give it their approval. Regards, Dik Takken