Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115570
Message-ID: <353F9140-7E59-4CD4-95D3-9BA8F9CA6C29@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_942F17DA-DD4B-4B85-8053-A97A8A451569"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 23:53:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgp=B7-AvMao0POCF_h_A3A4voHNA_BsjfonBQ8yDHb0v-A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com>
References: <CAOWwgp=B7-AvMao0POCF_h_A3A4voHNA_BsjfonBQ8yDHb0v-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable intersection types
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_942F17DA-DD4B-4B85-8053-A97A8A451569
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Jul 23, 2021, at 5:58 AM, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi everyone,
>=20
> as proposed by Nikita and Joe, I'm submitting this late RFC for your
> consideration for inclusion in PHP 8.1. Intersection types as =
currently
> accepted are not nullable. This RFC proposes to make them so.
>=20
> I wrote everything down about the reasons why here:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_intersection_types
>=20
> Please have a look and let me know what you think.
>=20
> Have a nice read,
>=20
> Nicolas

It seems this RFC is actually trying to accomplish two(2) things:

1. Add typehints for nullable intersection types to PHP.
2. Get PHP to support a preferred syntax for type-hinting nullable =
intersection types.

Further:

A. There seems to be consensus on the value of #1.
B. There seems to be consensus on using a syntax with parentheses for =
#1.=20
C. There is a lot of pushback on #2.
D. The desired syntax in #2 would reduce future flexibility, as Larry =
Garfield commented.=20

Given both of these sets of assertions I would ask the RFC's author and =
proponents what would be a worse outcome?

X. Getting typehints for nullable intersection types added to PHP, but =
not the desired syntax?
Y. Not getting typehints for nullable intersection types added to PHP?=20=


When answering please consider that #X is the outcome that would not =
preclude possibly getting #2 at a future date.

---------

Also, the entire discussion has claimed a "need" for nullable =
intersection types but AFAIIK they have been presented in completely =
abstract terms; i.e. no one has presented any real-world scenarios where =
they would actually use nullable intersection types. =20

It might be helpful =E2=80=94 or at least it would be for me =E2=80=94 =
if the RFC could add two or three real-world example use-cases where the =
author and proponents would actually like to use nullable intersection =
types in their future PHP code. =20

#jmtcw

-Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_942F17DA-DD4B-4B85-8053-A97A8A451569--