Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119438
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xWsBsuzJ-7xwisUZxY+kxSmh-PhkAkPWh68c=qDs=nLrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xWsBsuzJ-7xwisUZxY+kxSmh-PhkAkPWh68c=qDs=nLrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:20:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAwdEzC6e2o9dyV4Y_Z73Cz2cmN5rbh7Mc4WXtbZt_zZAvJaSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1614e05f39d73aa"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants
From: drealecs@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?=)

--000000000000b1614e05f39d73aa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:01 PM M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.=
com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> A few years ago, Benas Seliuginas announced the "Typed constants" RFC (
> https://externals.io/message/110755) which apparently had a
> positive reception overall.
> Unfortunately, there were some issues with the implementation (namely, wi=
th
> the parser)
> so the RFC was stuck.
>
> A few weeks ago, I reached out to Benas whether he intended to resurrect
> the proposal, but
> due to time constraints, he couldn't, and was OK with me continuing it.
> With some help from
> Bob Weinand, I managed to overcome the implementation difficulties, and
> adapted it
> to the newly added type-related features.
>
> Please find the updated RFC here:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants.
>
> Regards,
> M=C3=A1t=C3=A9
>

Hi M=C3=A1t=C3=A9,

Looks great!

Two small things:
1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and also
there is no explanation why.
2. In the examples for illegal values, it would be good to explain why they
are not legal.
  I don't understand why "public const ?Foo M =3D null;" wouldn't be legal.
  I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be legal.

Thank you,
Alex

--000000000000b1614e05f39d73aa--