Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72862
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain tutteli.ch designates 80.74.154.78 as permitted sender)
To: "'Philip Sturgeon'" <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>,
	"'PHP Developers Mailing List'" <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <CABDNdAFxyOC4gGAseF4Xa_Ukp3w+1NO_nSDBL=k=RhGap=ogEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAFxyOC4gGAseF4Xa_Ukp3w+1NO_nSDBL=k=RhGap=ogEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:25:49 +0100
Message-ID: <001f01cf3490$fadf31e0$f09d95a0$@tutteli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQInURIh6Kc6IUZr3EE3x2wBXsr7YAIPrvW7AqmJB/QClDnE9AFyZ2wjAiXcbn8Bu1t+JAEbKtkQAeHLkb8Dk0e8SQIy3L+sAYhJtV6ZYxl3MA==
Content-Language: de-ch
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: php@tutteli.ch ("Robert Stoll")


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturgeon@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:54 PM
> To: PHP Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
> 
> 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.
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

I brought up that null in an array is a valid use case at the beginning of this discussion and that the RFC should deal
with such use cases - otherwise it is incomplete. I still claim it is incomplete if this topic is not addressed but I am
happy if option 2 is implemented later on.