Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92780
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 207.46.100.121 as permitted sender)
To: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFMT4No6TkR+idwxVfQf+2Zs_kCNu37ymxVDy7_M+iAvXiGKkg@mail.gmail.com>
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>,
	Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Message-ID: <571F7899.7010402@zend.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:18:01 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4No6TkR+idwxVfQf+2Zs_kCNu37ymxVDy7_M+iAvXiGKkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2016 14:18:13.7443 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0201MB1778
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)



On 04/26/2016 04:57 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> 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 Morrisont
Your "Nullable Types" RFC don't have up to date implementation. You took 
ownership on two competing RFCs, but make preference to one.
In our conversation, I took your point 3 times (delaying Nullable in 
2015, delaying my RFC for a week (while you have time), sending your RFC 
instead of mine, because they proposed almost the same).

I think, it's going to be fair, if now you take my point.

I don't like to argue. You got what you liked.
Now "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" should compete in fair way.

Thanks. Dmitry.