Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92800 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4891 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2016 16:58:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Apr 2016 16:58:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=fsb@thefsb.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=fsb@thefsb.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.67 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: fsb@thefsb.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.203.187.67 smtp67.iad3a.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [173.203.187.67] ([173.203.187.67:50299] helo=smtp67.iad3a.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CD/A3-20013-D1E9F175 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:58:05 -0400 Received: from smtp25.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp25.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id ED6351801CF; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:58:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: fsb@thefsb.org Received: by smtp25.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fsb-AT-thefsb.org) with ESMTPSA id BC3A61800BE; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:58:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: fsb@thefsb.org Received: from yossy.local (c-66-30-62-12.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.62.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.5.4); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:58:02 -0400 To: Bob Weinand , Levi Morrison References: <571F7B91.2030102@zend.com> Cc: Dmitry Stogov , internals , Joe Watkins Message-ID: <571F9E1A.7090907@thefsb.org> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:58:02 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types From: fsb@thefsb.org (Tom Worster) On 4/26/16 10:58 AM, Bob Weinand wrote: > Yeah, I'd like to not allow ?Foo in any case if union types pass. > If they fail, ?Foo is fine for me. I am persuaded that using the HHVM grammar is best. I personally don't like but it makes sense. If the Union RFC would propose only the | grammar and both Nullable RFCs would propose only ? grammar then the decision process could be relatively clear: 1 Union 2 Nullable hints and return 3 Nullable return 4 None of the above Tom