Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115575 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59415 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2021 07:52:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2021 07:52:01 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0C91804D0 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:18:09 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com (mail-io1-f48.google.com [209.85.166.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id l18so5263807ioh.11 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:18:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rF84LZWapAfcnx7O7Rhlp8sYys8eTtHm9g+wO4DuXto=; b=W/AUIq2VjyIh09BJ29+ScEv361zO8crgL1zsFeMWkyTwa0CnI6/ozg7H2a4ryNR7T3 xUcRTEnvcKezy4Npdjujy/4/G5pP1a1VhrjY/4tHwAi4IfkvxBjL5li0PguPEGs3+JBc LDByZh/l/t7v2wdqUl4g3PFMHjpvyO3TGHzkUTpHMdWIaASHmK0f61HyaIMKuwOfoqVD ppClFbpjbMYZyTjZoc7QsKGDLgIhy08quq9BgZ+7j/CRgR/SpoJNidZWw8Py7BjIggKA JsXbBNzd9apT7VdSWwbNdaIqslIpwrFp81lMqFD0eO/6GuTIeTxnGlK7blX4Ae0LvaJO NnLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rF84LZWapAfcnx7O7Rhlp8sYys8eTtHm9g+wO4DuXto=; b=QGnw5rxosNVbyGOgg5RhIHocTAHIm4OwbBnfxpGx43+rgMnJQIuJP42mTN+DTEgmDT 9f9dAF2oNs7wt4UQz9Idze2fzedJQXMBJXy9FflzWJqr+hl9hRHRkHR3WK129AXnyqiV 0FQcpkoaUvOV7xYkJV0kywEDti/3g1QBJAf2QgrKK2Pn+qAoyVm8OZP2qqkW0XHWsIkA 47ZzMt+M300nPj3E9ta15tRGavvcL0HujYUj/0ku2ohBe4UkBvWxFSqbzYngAsi40QmS uuJ5NH3IKrMcWVb/otv19H02D85Wgnxz0aAUHwLB7lnLat+LZNxUoE2iGWvdnRzg3QAS WB5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Rjidp4qKR7KX+/vsqq9A4Tp/7NLYoUWnYnRXyF8oRT0QRn7fe 7eQiXP6JN3lZFbpFz5EFlyEOjX/sH+pDc3iyToU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxo626pV4z12Iah1SdR+aIrmraH6CNTBlc8E6GVV5RN8sdTZO8TIIH8NcgHMDoiIPzAsLIrlVlqKrjRXyEBM7w= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:228b:: with SMTP id d11mr3512148iod.207.1627114685278; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:18:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <353F9140-7E59-4CD4-95D3-9BA8F9CA6C29@newclarity.net> <43D8F75F-09B0-4AE4-A9EB-8775E231B367@gmail.com> <94F0E6DA-8C69-402D-B6B2-5EBDEB6638FB@newclarity.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:17:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: Tobias Nyholm Cc: Mike Schinkel , Nicolas Grekas , PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3325d05c7da28f6" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable intersection types From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu) --000000000000d3325d05c7da28f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 07:33 Tobias Nyholm wrote: > > >>> Given both of these sets of assertions I would ask the RFC's author > and proponents what would be a worse outcome? > >> > >> I don=E2=80=99t see how this question is relevant. We are not seeking > compromises at the moment. We are seeking the best technical solution to = a > technical issue. > The very essence of this whole RFC is rooted in compromise. This is a new feature being discussed after feature freeze. If best technical solution is what we should seek, then this discussion should target 8.2. > > > That is a strange attitude. You are saying that you rather see a release > with a know flaw than actually trying to find the best solution. > The release will be in 4 months. There is a process to clearly find issue= s > like this. There is plenty of time to review this RFC and release it in > beta 2 and let people test it. This is not a last minute thing, the proce= ss > is designed for this. Where does it say that feature freeze exists so that more features can be built after the freeze? > > So the =E2=80=9Creal world examples=E2=80=9D you are looking for is: > If we don=E2=80=99t merge a version of this RFC in 8.1, PHP packages will= not take > leverage of the inspection types until PHP 8.2. > > As the RFC states and Benjamin made extra clear, this is exactly what > happened with PHP 7.0. > And that's OK! Pure Intersection was voted that way 30 against 3 the way that it was! You can steer clear from intersection in libraries on 8.1 and use it on application code only, provide feedback and be part of a healthier discussion when extending its capabilities to cover what libraries need at a later stage. --000000000000d3325d05c7da28f6--