Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72861
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGAGxbYo4FGBfvAVR89fBE0Cqn_MDkotaNOa1JfY-LJP8oEMjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPhkiZzW8g6PORyjrHFRTcUTLre+wM-sckZrNqRknkdgZrpr-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<52D865C7.4070009@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAPhkiZy9nhRAQFPgSfeemO4UT1B6iuozhirwt0wZ=mUaOUOJwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZwzPz48c4gwAWt9ZPATpmLxk8kRL3A+Pd8KrveQabQQ6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZyXOsx5CrV1QH2DrC9Who==i_CwNTeGQO4-DM0_mExuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZw1zgNBavNj-H1y_-8Fwnr34jUmu8cNk5jX7krAx29oag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAE_-Lv29Q2r1BJgkLD0NutkwxN2AXQgsCZm7TPJKjEmxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAEKXkFL2kqAPXPxjgZLD9toeva9D8emG+Zw2jKn-4Aijg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADyq6sLJovLcM3LZR_UDQbjN1Ba9wRuzWBMiXHbLJMQc6Kmptw@mail.gmail.com>
	<531044A8.8050002@googlemail.com>
	<CAGAGxbYo4FGBfvAVR89fBE0Cqn_MDkotaNOa1JfY-LJP8oEMjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:53:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CABDNdAFxyOC4gGAseF4Xa_Ukp3w+1NO_nSDBL=k=RhGap=ogEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 February 2014 22:11, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, should we allow nulls in an arrayof-style type hint?
>>
>
> `null` has its own type, which is mismatching the type required by the
> array-of syntax when requesting, for example, `Foo[]`.
>
> If `null` was allowed in the array, as a user, I'd still be forced to
> `array_filter()` on every call, so it would defeat the new feature
> completely.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marco Pivetta
>
> http://twitter.com/Ocramius
>
> http://ocramius.github.com/
>

I completely agree with you and the other folks saying: "Allowing
nulls would defeat the new feature completely". Personally I would not
see myself using the "Foo or null", and if I wanted to in the future I
could very easily just not type hint the array.


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> On 27 Feb 2014, at 21:11, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, should we allow nulls in an arrayof-style type hint?
>
>
> I previously suggested using the C#-style ? to specify nullability. Why
> can't we do that?
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/

We could potentially add in the ? syntax later on, if people seemed to
want the feature enough?
Just to make sure we are on the same page here, nullable arrays are
fine. Arrays with nulls inside are not.

Both of these are acceptable:

    function foo(Bar[] $baz) // accepts [new Bar, new Bar]
    function foo(Bar[] $baz = null) // accepts [new Bar, new Bar] or null

Some people are suggesting the following alternatives.

1. Let nulls in there regardless of default var hinting:

    function foo(Bar[] $baz) // accepts [new Bar, null, new Bar, null]
    function foo(Bar[] $baz = null) // accepts [new Bar, null, new
Bar, null] or null

This is what many describe as a completely useless version of the
feature, as array_filter would need to be run to ensure you're only
working with objects of a certain type (which is 90% of the use-case
for this RFC).

Or, 2. Offer optional syntax for arrays containing nulls

    function foo(Bar[]? $baz) // accepts [new Bar, null, new Bar, null]
    function foo(Bar[]? $baz = null) // accepts [new Bar, null, new
Bar, null] or null

Pro: Keeps nulls out of the array by default, offers a way to say "Bar or null"
Con: Potentially syntax soup.