Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92782
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.161.180 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:20:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_n=bZ5KJ66edyi-0=mYenGQy+oDLvQ8jg1muoGOX+SaeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com>, 
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11429262f56e7c053163ff0a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a11429262f56e7c053163ff0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fully agree, I think we should move ahead with the nullable question first,
and swiftly.

Happy for them to go to vote, tomorrow, if that was serious.

Cheers
Joe

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > Internals,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > A few things to note:
> >
> >  * 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`)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for
> > scalar types as it has been a point of discussion.
> >
> >  [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 th=
e
> 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

--001a11429262f56e7c053163ff0a--