Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115751
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOwTYAu_gA7Lre-xmzMV1Jny4r23ud2OFis7GSPd9Z8=Bh1QnQ@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>
 <CAOwTYAu_gA7Lre-xmzMV1Jny4r23ud2OFis7GSPd9Z8=Bh1QnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:48:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAu0GDE-kX=7RkHPTjAnDdCTZWeUNvwhTqW4gQM92j4WTg@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="0000000000008737ee05c9a86d92"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Nullable intersection types
From: krakjoe@gmail.com (Joe Watkins)

--0000000000008737ee05c9a86d92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Please rearrange and add words as necessary, so that they makes sense :)

"... however that doesn't seem to have been widely understood".

Cheers
Joe

On Monday, 16 August 2021, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com> wrote:

> Morning all,
>
> The initial RFC was clear that nullability was not supported, however tha=
t
> 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 nullabilit=
y.
>
> As this conversation has progressed it has become clear that we don't hav=
e
> 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
>>> are 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
>>
>

--0000000000008737ee05c9a86d92--