Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119458
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xWsBsuzJ-7xwisUZxY+kxSmh-PhkAkPWh68c=qDs=nLrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzC6e2o9dyV4Y_Z73Cz2cmN5rbh7Mc4WXtbZt_zZAvJaSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAwdEzC6e2o9dyV4Y_Z73Cz2cmN5rbh7Mc4WXtbZt_zZAvJaSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:34:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xX_JjdF-7PHHAiTP_Jy73MyBWzJbQxt4LV6Qtajxd8Zug@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0f5da05f3cc9352"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--000000000000b0f5da05f3cc9352
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alexandru, Mark,


> 1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and also
> there is no explanation why.
>

Sorry for this, mentioning object as unsupported was an artifact from the
original version of the RFC which
was created back then when constants couldn't be objects. After your
comments, I removed the object type
from the list. Thank you for catching this issue!


> 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 lega=
l.
>   I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be legal.
>
> It was there due to the same reason as above. I removed this example now.

I had updated the RFC page, but it looks like the changes were reverted in
> December 2022. The updated version I was working on was:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants?rev=3D1648644637


Yeah, the original author of the RFC was surprised to find your changes in
his RFC (https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5815#issuecomment-1356049048),
so he restored his original version.
Next time, please either consult with the author of an RFC if you intend to
modify the wording, or you can simply create a brand new RFC - even if it's
very similar to the original one (just don't
forget to add proper references).

The updated RFC looks good, thanks for working on it. You may want to
> review the revised version I had worked on for implementation ideas, and
> review the previous conversations.
>

I also saw your proposal, but to be honest, I'm not that fond of the idea.
This doesn't mean though that you shouldn't create a new RFC or an
implementation, as others may find it useful. If you kick off
the project, I'll surely try to review your work.

Regards,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis

--000000000000b0f5da05f3cc9352--