Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84859
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nF81EPPEwcomFsiwr_8KQOnWdwJ5E8_aCoJqUzF5pNAdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP234CAFED9639237DE430B18E2190@phx.gbl>
	<325E0097-FD7E-4997-A95D-20C62368E162@zend.com>
	<55031C54.6060802@eliw.com>
	<CAMc0WS5MJ_RAtNO47R4wQjy8_YSDzzZeGECLUnzSVOAmB2JyPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFp73Xtk4-o=DjipY4niopmgg+JC+Yyju_oxUWKWEHqMgQoiOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CE491F0-C243-4788-ADA2-5DA9DF1D1168@php.net>
	<d40df0c5636fccd2dd672ad1a4b72ced@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEPJdukMnxn+Rjxy7tN0oSfoD_ryNwKDRLjJF6AAwGoWGH8WQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<332304ae552bfc635f999a8d73b505f0@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7Yv4T2YJYm9B3jyoro+28opg1XtcrZAT9+ZTmVFkq4Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMc0WS5+AwBuyqE4BobM_MaR97gWPQQm+Ot2k1Jja+69JBTBHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<85d81405ee1791efadea83cf734ebce3@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nF81EPPEwcomFsiwr_8KQOnWdwJ5E8_aCoJqUzF5pNAdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:54:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB6YZuz9y5BzWnpDp4+JYpa_QSGej4cZsV_Pg=-3SgaSsPnQLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Stelian Mocanita <stelianm@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
From: pajousek@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?=)

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> Zeev,
>
>>> Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RF=
C
>>> started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
>>> vote
>>> after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
>>>
>>> So we are either violating the RFC rules by pushing the vote tomorrow o=
r
>>> we're delaying PHP7 for another 2 weeks maybe yet another TH RFC passes=
?
>>
>> Bob's RFC is effectively Andrea's v0.1 RFC which was discussed in detail=
 and
>> introduced well over two weeks ago.
>> I hope we're not going to go into more and more extremes of playing a la=
w
>> firm and not an OS project.
>
> We have minimum discussion periods for a reason. To allow people the
> time to review proposals as much as to discuss them.
>
> On the surface, yes, this looks like Andrea's 0.1 RFC. However, after
> looking at it, it's definitely different. There's a very significant
> behavior difference between the two:
>
> Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
>
>> The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be consi=
stent with our existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays, NULL =
is not accepted by default, unless the parameter is explicitly given a defa=
ult value of NULL. This would work well with the draft Declaring Nullable T=
ypes RFC.
>
> This proposal has a different behavior here. It explicitly allows
> nulls for types:
>
> function foo(int $abc) { var_dump($abc); }
>
> Unlike my proposal and any of Andrea's, calling foo(null) will be
> int(0) instead of an error.
>
> This is an important distinction as it basically undermines any
> attempt at a nullable RFC, since it makes primitives implicitly
> nullable.
>
> So it's not effectively the original proposal. It does differ in a
> very significant detail. This is why we have mandatory discussion
> periods. Not for "playing law firm" but for being fair to each other.
>
> Anthony.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

Hello,

good catch. Nullable RFC would IMHO help PHP, and underminding it isn't goo=
d.

Regards
Pavel Kouril