Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115562
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOWwgp=B7-AvMao0POCF_h_A3A4voHNA_BsjfonBQ8yDHb0v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2107231324200.2773@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2107231324200.2773@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:30:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK1yXLBwEi3Op_3Wad0RCs8v0Spw2cC2XYuaqtxBfMeiXZw7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df1a2a05c7cb418c"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable intersection types
From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu)

--000000000000df1a2a05c7cb418c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:36 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> From the RFC: =C2=ABTaking all these elements into account, the preferenc=
e
> of... and thus to use the "?X&Y" syntax=C2=BB.
>
> I think this would be a mistake. You touch upon operator precedence, and
> needing to know whether | or & is higher, and inventing a new precedence
> for ?.
>
> I would strongly advocate for not getting into the realm with any
> operator precendence, but instead *require* parenthesis for any
> combination. This gives the code reader and writer an immediate clue
> about what the code does. Most coding standards also recommend this for
> expressions in "if" statements and the like.
>
> I do however agree with Sara's =C2=ABover-delivering syntax that hasn't b=
een
> entirely thought through=C2=BB point. It will take a lot longer to come u=
p
> with a proposal to combine intersection and union types.
>
> That in combination that you're proposing this RFC after feature freeze,
> while you've had four months to make this arguments as part of the "Pure
> Intersection Types" RFC, I am currently not going to support this RFC
> for inclusion into PHP 8.1.
>
> cheers,
> Derick
>
> --
> PHP 7.4 Release Manager
> Host of PHP Internals News: https://phpinternals.news
> Like Xdebug? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support
> https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php


These are precisely everything I think about this RFC. The only thing the
RFC made clear is why it is easy to make an exception for null while still
not providing a full mix of union and intersection.

Maybe my memory is also really bad, but the RFC makes it seem like version
7.0 was a mistake to be learned from which isn't clear for me. I understand
that introducing nullable intersection later will warrant a major version
and I don't see a problem with that. Pure Intersection RFC was such a
breeze vote precisely because it didn't involve the complexity of mixing
with union. Part of that complexity is now being rushed after feature
freeze.

--=20
Marco Aur=C3=A9lio Deleu

--000000000000df1a2a05c7cb418c--