Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109829 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75372 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2020 16:17:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2020 16:17:51 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572901804F3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:50:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.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,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS6830 62.179.0.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from vie01a-dmta-pe03-1.mx.upcmail.net (vie01a-dmta-pe03-1.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.31.216.235] (helo=vie01a-pemc-psmtp-pe12.mail.upcmail.net) by vie01a-dmta-pe03.mx.upcmail.net with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jRzeT-0000eI-05 for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:50:01 +0200 Received: from mail02.home ([213.47.8.56]) by vie01a-pemc-psmtp-pe12.mail.upcmail.net with ESMTP id RzdUj99pb6Jy6RzdUjM5Va; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:49:01 +0200 X-Env-Mailfrom: markus@fischer.name X-Env-Rcptto: internals@lists.php.net X-SourceIP: 213.47.8.56 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=GKl27dFK c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UsP8JIz990cEySE/ILGzbQ==:117 a=UsP8JIz990cEySE/ILGzbQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=cl8xLZFz6L8A:10 a=2EALvoLjsrEA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=bk_iHeR1dMrutcPBce8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Received: from mail02.home ([192.168.1.14] helo=the-matrix-has-you.local) by mail02.home with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1jRzdT-0000xG-Kl for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:49:00 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:48:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 24.04.20 16:33, Bob Weinand wrote: > Actually, Really had to laugh, reading your previous and then this mail :-) > > I forgot that for proper generics implementations, collections etc. will obviously need to specify "allowing any type". As such the introduction of mixed is pretty much necessary. > > As in class Foo { … } $foo = new Foo; > > As such, I'm actually in favor of introducing it. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfF4CjXFbQEdUMBMa3jofd41wX5dC15X9wrk3LOI8WC4txbS1q9cdUt/zF4ygEoawzyvY+K6Qr2MHTE8BXGQMeC6ibZpGHR86wT9AM5A4sVc5rwxVJfq5 qlP6j+TY052i1TYB1Xgg2DipY1+od6Ckert+yshsP/WPLKWRkgCeqEZ0 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Mixed type From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer) On 24.04.20 16:33, Bob Weinand wrote: > Actually, Really had to laugh, reading your previous and then this mail :-) > > I forgot that for proper generics implementations, collections etc. will obviously need to specify "allowing any type". As such the introduction of mixed is pretty much necessary. > > As in class Foo { … } $foo = new Foo; > > As such, I'm actually in favor of introducing it. Re-quote: > "allowing any type" That would make the case for the `any` type instead of mixed; IMHO much more clear. - Markus