Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121740
Message-ID: <054a1e3e-f860-4596-83a9-9f557c6fd316@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:08:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <2b4591c1-f999-49b5-8061-67db816aa0da@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2b4591c1-f999-49b5-8061-67db816aa0da@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RFC][Discussion] Harmonise "untyped" and "typed" properties
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 16/11/2023 20:41, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have finally written up an RFC I have been considering for some 
> time: Harmonise "untyped" and "typed" properties
>
> RFC URL: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/mixed_vs_untyped_properties


I've revised the RFC; it now proposes to keep the implicit "= null" for 
untyped properties, although I'm still interested in suggestions for 
other strategies around that. I have also added discussion of variance 
checks (thanks Claude for the tips on that).

While doing so, I checked Reflection, and am unsure how to proceed. 
Currently ReflectionParameter shows a difference between "function 
foo($bar)" and "function foo(mixed $bar)", even though these are 
analysed as equivalent in inheritance checks. Should ReflectionProperty 
also retain this distinction? Was the possibility discussed when "mixed" 
was introduced of using a ReflectionType of mixed for both cases?

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]