Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92781
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.172 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:19:17 +0200
CC: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>,
 internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)


> Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>:
>=20
> hi Levi,
>=20
> 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 :(
>=20
> I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types".
>=20
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types
>=20
> At least, it has up to date implementation.
>=20
> 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 :(
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>=20
>=20
> ________________________________________
> From: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 02:37
> To: internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
>=20
> Internals,
>=20
> Joe Watkins and Bob Weinand have worked out a [proof-of-concept patch
> for union types][1]. Please go download it and experiment with it.
>=20
> A few things to note:
>=20
>  * This patch includes intersection types. However, a type expression
> must be either a union type or an intersection type; it doesn't
> support both such as `Array | (Countable & Traversable)`.
>  * This patch adds `null`, `true` and `false` for type declarations.
>  * This patch includes conversion rules for weak types.
>  * It does not have short-hand for unions with null (`?Foo` being `Foo =
| Null`)
>=20
> These features (or omitted ones) are not necessarily what will be
> voted on. Rather this patch allows us to experiment with these
> features in code. This experience should be helpful for us to solidify
> how we actually feel about these features.
>=20
> I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for
> scalar types as it has been a point of discussion.
>=20
>  [1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1887

Hey Dmitry,

Please, do not accuse us of blocking the nullables. This wasn't =
intentional and rather a coincidence that we provided a patch right now.
First we wanted to concentrate our forces on getting a great 7.0 out =
before starting this RFC (as it didn't make it in time for going into =
7.0 too as we waited for result on scalar types in general first).
Then, as you're aware Levi had absolutely no time for a few months=E2=80=A6=
 Now, he has time to manage things and we could move ahead quickly and =
write the patch up.

I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" =
or "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through =
right now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority =
dislikes.

Thanks,
Bob=