Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92290
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain daveyshafik.com from 209.85.215.50 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@daveyshafik.com
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1604140957350.3330@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <CAFMT4No6yFJ4r4bWGOaLZkYdpqE_YeDiEHCecq4ATBqypeUegQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1604140957350.3330@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:59:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CANaX5nfo9xhP2VpGkUZ2OmX_sK+p0Ok2wvAzNTctJ-Pj=4h29Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11401f2014436805306ef2eb
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable Types
From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik)

--001a11401f2014436805306ef2eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> > As alluded to in an earlier email today[1] I am now moving the
> > Nullable Types RFC[2] to the discussion phase. In a nutshell this RFC
> > proposes syntax for declaring a type to alternatively be null.
> >
> > There is a decision that needs to be made: does the question mark go
> > before or after the type name?
> >
> >     function (?Foo $foo);
> >     function (Foo? $foo);
> >
> > There are precedents in several languages for each position. Some
> > relevant issues to where the question mark goes are noted in the
> > RFC[3].
>
> Please put it where HHVM puts it: in front of it. Other languages are
> less of an issue than a syntax that's already used in a somewhat PHP
> language.
>
> As to the rest of the RFC: LGTM!


I much prefer the "Nullable Foo" (?Foo) to "Foo or Null"  (Foo?). I find it
easier to read.

However, I am not a fan of introducing both this and the "Null" type for
union types =E2=80=94 this should be the only way to create nullable types.=
 We
already have too many things that are possible in more than one way.

As it sits, this is purely syntactic sugar (when taken in tandem with union
types) and [if] we agree that it is good, then let us just forgo the other
syntax entirely. I'll add a little about that on the appropriate thread.

- Davey

--001a11401f2014436805306ef2eb--