Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115568 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13163 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2021 16:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2021 16:02:16 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AEB9180212 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:28:18 -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=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS16276 94.23.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from processus.org (ns366368.ip-94-23-14.eu [94.23.14.201]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from authenticated-user (PRIMARY_HOSTNAME [PUBLIC_IP]) by processus.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E539F5101324 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:28:12 +0000 (UTC) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <77b313e3-e820-c50e-f921-40de5f41853f@processus.org> Message-ID: <18cc6ac0-b5f7-9b25-d6fb-51f7000f4307@processus.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:28:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Authentication-Results: processus.org; auth=pass smtp.auth=pierre-php@processus.org smtp.mailfrom=pierre-php@processus.org X-Spamd-Bar: / Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable intersection types From: pierre-php@processus.org (Pierre) Le 23/07/2021 à 18:25, Larry Garfield a écrit : > Requiring parenthesis now leaves the option open in the future to make them optional when doing full mixed types. > > Making them optional now requires that they be optional in the future when doing full mixed types. > > I vaguely recall there being some potential issue with making them optional for full mixed intersection/union types, but not the details. Either way, it's a not-small decision to make, and may have complicated implications for future work. It shouldn't be made on "eh, seems nicer" grounds in a post-freeze last minute RFC. > > Making it required now is the safer option, as it allows more flexibility in the future once someone tries to implement full union/intersection mixing. Making it optional later may still happen, I don't know, but it doesn't box us in to requiring it later. This is a good point as well. Regards, -- Pierre