Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115750
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADK1yXL6urFvFCy3zfcMiOD5So_wk4dMSEJSkS-O5JKD=QPqnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOWwgpn0ZKV1ZA5pErEjwQVXsHpyb9zoA1VT7DsHC0=SeVeXJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACwt+Je+t0p9eF+6Q3Urk7b4k6qPQtkRRqBg3P+tEb_t_W2H_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <72785D6F-6803-49BB-B575-01061699ABF4@gmail.com> <CAJW__o3yDUB1TU9sLmKfs3CHS2V660S3uyGDffEojzcwYFGKhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <448DAADA-C819-457F-ABBF-F942128B2830@gmail.com> <CADK1yXL6urFvFCy3zfcMiOD5So_wk4dMSEJSkS-O5JKD=QPqnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:45:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAu_gA7Lre-xmzMV1Jny4r23ud2OFis7GSPd9Z8=Bh1QnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com>
Cc: Tobias Nyholm <tobias.nyholm@gmail.com>, Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>, 
	Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d1c5205c9a86247"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Nullable intersection types
From: krakjoe@gmail.com (Joe Watkins)

--0000000000002d1c5205c9a86247
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Morning all,

The initial RFC was clear that nullability was not supported, however that
doesn't seem to be have widely understood.

When I said we should move forward I did imagine that there was some
consensus about the syntax we should use if we were to support nullability.

As this conversation has progressed it has become clear that we don't have
that consensus, and many people are just not comfortable trying to build
consensus this late in the cycle.

The RFC is not passing currently so I don't think we actually need to do
anything, except prepare to deploy the feature that was voted in, pure
intersections.

The RFC should be allowed to complete, it's gathering important data.

In the end, I'm not as happy to make an exception as I was when the
discussion started.

Cheers
Joe

On Monday, 16 August 2021, Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Tobias Nyholm <tobias.nyholm@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey.
>>
>> > No mistake: the "pure intersection types" RFC was explicitly designed
>> to avoid scope creep (this RFC).
>>
>>
>> Just because it was intentional, does not make it less of a mistake.
>> I see that we have different views of this. And I understand that you ar=
e
>> happy with this change, but only for 8.2.
>>
>>
> I hope one day I'll have built up so much experience, knowledge and
> confidence to call a 30 x 3 vote of the selective people that can cast a
> vote "a mistake".
>
> --
> Marco Aur=C3=A9lio Deleu
>

--0000000000002d1c5205c9a86247--