Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92564
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFKaYMpWN+9uBqJ_p6-p14ZqYm0cm+q3LHkY3o9q7EvFCBS9Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_gUbfu91QRm1U0KyDjai8DKw7yCE6QxgUecy60oq3Zi8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKiSzdCO83XM0zqAeFnjQEMJvbd0yBmYAFnj0H6AtDumofVbkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKiSzdCCEF=7OWtvZETG3bRoByCCLqEAEjuLW_H6m7MmDtJ8_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFKaYMoQUUFLqgDjOHj3W0+a63u3s=vqnU5gWMCj0zvmvXFF5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<3cc8a4c7-2640-11ae-a67b-06f909ac1e27@texthtml.net>
	<CAESVnVqCZnrbHa+5_tSYG70VyvGfpZoDM98bEst3pg36HahYEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<57173859.4080501@rochette.cc>
	<CAFKaYMq_KFrygXwcuTd85y11X0_YMFop2tum+8jjXnkGKON6QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFp73Xu2dM+E9Ri8dN-yt9Ha6-1UmOtD0RYq+HZXbjvzcWqJwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFKaYMpWN+9uBqJ_p6-p14ZqYm0cm+q3LHkY3o9q7EvFCBS9Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:17:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFKaYMo5rtXeV+uE85yuQ_xOpREiKF-zVdQN6T-vDET8WhFvzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
Cc: Mathieu Rochette <mathieu@texthtml.net>, Josh Di Fabio <joshdifabio@gmail.com>, 
	"Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD'" <mail@dasprids.de>, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>, 
	Mathieu Rochette <mathieu@rochette.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05231eca81ad0530ef7134
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC:generics]
From: codekestrel@googlemail.com (Dominic Grostate)

--94eb2c05231eca81ad0530ef7134
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks for you're input everyone.

So far, we have read some ideas for handling upper bounds, or multiple
there of.
The preferred keywords appear to be either "as" or "instanceof".

class Foo<T as Bar> {}
class Foo<T instanceof Bar> {}

We would like to know for sure then if everyone is largely against the
addition of an "is" keyword, in favour of one of the other two.

----------------

There is also a desire to include unions and intersections.
Presently though, this feature feels tied in with
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types meaning if union types are approved,
then generics would have to support them as well.  Likewise if this feature
becomes approved in generics, it would make sense to support them in
regular type hints as well.

----------------

The RFC makes a reference to generic closures, which may look something
like this:

function my_function(callable<Foo, Bar> $func) {

}

However, an RFC already exists which is very similar to this feature at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable-types
As it currently standards these RFCs appear incompatible with each other
(please correct me if I am wrong).

My question about this is would you prefer the generics RFC exclude this
part in favour of a separate or later RFC.
Initially the proposal included generic arrays "array<string>".  However to
ease the implementation it was decided that should be a separate feature.
So we'd like to find out if everyone else feels the same way about callable
types.

----------------

This RFC currently doesn't specify in detail how reflection would work.  We
have attempted a few API designs, but due to generic classes being ...
generic, it is difficult to find a suitable way to glean information about
a class in a backwards compatible manner.  So we will need some help on
this one.

-----------------

Aside from these top issues on our own list, however does everyone feel
about the proposal in general?
As the RFC is still in draft, we will continue to make changes to it as
more popular idea pop up, so please continue.

Thanks.

PS: I wasn't properly subscribed to the mailing list, so I missed a few
important messages that were mailed directly to internals, but hopefully
I've managed to fix that now.

--94eb2c05231eca81ad0530ef7134--