Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92585
Return-Path: <mathieu@texthtml.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 33546 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2016 00:40:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 21 Apr 2016 00:40:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mathieu@texthtml.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mathieu@texthtml.net; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain texthtml.net designates 62.210.206.189 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mathieu@texthtml.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.210.206.189 texthtml.net  
Received: from [62.210.206.189] ([62.210.206.189:60769] helo=texthtml.net)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id F8/3B-14036-C7128175 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:40:29 -0400
Received: by texthtml.net (Postfix, from userid 65534)
	id E6702235; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:40:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.70] (stunnel_mail_1.mail_default [172.27.0.4])
	(Authenticated sender: mathieu@texthtml.net)
	by texthtml.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A657223E;
	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:40:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dominic Grostate <codekestrel@googlemail.com>,
 Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@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>
 <CAFKaYMo5rtXeV+uE85yuQ_xOpREiKF-zVdQN6T-vDET8WhFvzg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: 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>
Message-ID: <58b33375-f4dd-dd1e-e658-5f7df3027cd2@texthtml.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 02:40:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/47.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFKaYMo5rtXeV+uE85yuQ_xOpREiKF-zVdQN6T-vDET8WhFvzg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------91267382AF026D0FDD721340"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC:generics]
From: mathieu@texthtml.net (Mathieu Rochette)

--------------91267382AF026D0FDD721340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On 04/20/2016 09:17 PM, Dominic Grostate wrote:
> 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.
I don't mind having a new keyword and is would be my first choice because
using one of the other two would feel odd. in T instanceof Bar I expect
T to be a
variable, not a type and with T as Bar I feel like I'm telling PHP "T is
not a Bar but
treat as if it is"
I'm not that well aware of the implication of adding a new keyword but I
thought
it would not be a big deal since
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/context_sensitive_lexer
has passed (I'm not saying it's not important, just that using the most
appropriate
keyword is very important too)

>
> ----------------
>
> 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.
>

-- 
Mathieu Rochette


--------------91267382AF026D0FDD721340--