Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92783
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.161.176 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_n=bZ5KJ66edyi-0=mYenGQy+oDLvQ8jg1muoGOX+SaeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFMT4Npe8hJ1HOeJB3kfN11fnmyzRGi6znuR=Ay8kHds-ogSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY1PR0201MB1786D216DB7CE6D61B61E9D7BF630@CY1PR0201MB1786.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP543725ED65FFDEA7E68832E2630@phx.gbl>
	<CAL=_i_n=bZ5KJ66edyi-0=mYenGQy+oDLvQ8jg1muoGOX+SaeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:22:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_kded4WizjeEZDCJWZkcxbE6XRL41mcJnU10SPgw7B=yA@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=001a11429262e3c37105316405c5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a11429262e3c37105316405c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dmitry,

    Just to be clear, the nullable support in the implementation of
union/intersection is not a suggestion, the patch will conform to whatever
is decided by nullable types RFC.

    That was always the intention.

Cheers
Joe

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:

> 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 shoul=
d
>> 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 t=
he
>> patch up.
>>
>> I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" o=
r
>> "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through righ=
t
>> now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority dislikes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>
>
>

--001a11429262e3c37105316405c5--