Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92778
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.195 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:57:57 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4No6TkR+idwxVfQf+2Zs_kCNu37ymxVDy7_M+iAvXiGKkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, 
	Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: morrison.levi@gmail.com (Levi Morrison)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> hi Levi,
>
> It looks like your "work" on "Nullable Types" RFC was intended to win time for this patch and block "Nullable Types" again.
> Actually, you have been blocking it for more than a year :(
>
> I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types".
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types
>
> At least, it has up to date implementation.
>
> We discussed this internally 2-3 weeks ago, and my politeness (or/and stupidity) allowed you  to pass your version for common discussion.
> Now I can see your real reason :(
>
> Both "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" may make sense, and both should be voted at the same time.
> Tomorrow is time to start voting. Right?
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.

Dmitry,

I agree that union types and nullable types should be voted at the
same time. Union types is a large RFC and didn't have an
implementation until now. I think it is important that we have an
implementation to experiment wotj. I hope you can see how having an
implementation to experiment with is essential for both RFCs.

Please do not move any type related RFCs to voting; I am not
attempting to sabatoge nullable types. Please do not make such
accusations.

Levi Morrison