Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92821
Return-Path: <php@tutteli.ch>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 45600 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2016 20:15:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 26 Apr 2016 20:15:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@tutteli.ch; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@tutteli.ch; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain tutteli.ch designates 80.74.144.14 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@tutteli.ch
X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.144.14 ns10.kreativmedia.ch  
Received: from [80.74.144.14] ([80.74.144.14:50789] helo=ns10.kreativmedia.ch)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id D8/0C-20013-95CCF175 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:15:22 -0400
Received: from RoLaptop (adsl-84-227-2-98.adslplus.ch [84.227.2.98])
	by ns10.kreativmedia.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9612C47E0297;
	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
To: "'Rasmus Schultz'" <rasmus@mindplay.dk>,
	"'Josh Di Fabio'" <joshdifabio@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Dominic Grostate'" <codekestrel@googlemail.com>,
	"'Guilherme Blanco'" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>,
	"'Mathieu Rochette'" <mathieu@texthtml.net>,
	"'Ben Scholzen 'DASPRiD''" <mail@dasprids.de>,
	"'Sara Golemon'" <pollita@php.net>,
	"'PHP internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>,
	"'Mathieu Rochette'" <mathieu@rochette.cc>
References: <CADqTB_gUbfu91QRm1U0KyDjai8DKw7yCE6QxgUecy60oq3Zi8Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAKiSzdCO83XM0zqAeFnjQEMJvbd0yBmYAFnj0H6AtDumofVbkw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAKiSzdCCEF=7OWtvZETG3bRoByCCLqEAEjuLW_H6m7MmDtJ8_g@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFKaYMoQUUFLqgDjOHj3W0+a63u3s=vqnU5gWMCj0zvmvXFF5Q@mail.gmail.com>	<3cc8a4c7-2640-11ae-a67b-06f909ac1e27@texthtml.net>	<CAESVnVqCZnrbHa+5_tSYG70VyvGfpZoDM98bEst3pg36HahYEg@mail.gmail.com>	<57173859.4080501@rochette.cc>	<CAFKaYMq_KFrygXwcuTd85y11X0_YMFop2tum+8jjXnkGKON6QA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFp73Xu2dM+E9Ri8dN-yt9Ha6-1UmOtD0RYq+HZXbjvzcWqJwg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFKaYMpWN+9uBqJ_p6-p14ZqYm0cm+q3LHkY3o9q7EvFCBS9Bg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFKaYMo5rtXeV+uE85yuQ_xOpREiKF-zVdQN6T-vDET8WhFvzg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAKiSzdARnKM9=KwRhXJ1-2v44ueMAtBge+EywzDOT3+qkJ9xJg@mail.gmail.com> <CADqTB_jrfEBAesWTjDjzqTw5GnNQskgRfd_y8tOUyPF-e46ujA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_jrfEBAesWTjDjzqTw5GnNQskgRfd_y8tOUyPF-e46ujA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:15:16 +0200
Message-ID: <013101d19ff8$596b6010$0c422030$@tutteli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIuz2pO4BlNO6AEdNznmEmHKOSPUgH8tzyzAcTvi2ACWFsrBwIO1wFmAdxRi5QCZxtKUgESOGzrAqPTpEkCRZ9CuAKMyUA5AeMzfRMCUYkuyp4ZBZkw
Content-Language: de-ch
Subject: AW: [PHP-DEV] [RFC:generics]
From: php@tutteli.ch ("Robert Stoll")



> -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rasmus Schultz [mailto:rasmus@mindplay.dk]
> Gesendet: Montag, 25. April 2016 18:09
> An: Josh Di Fabio
> Cc: Dominic Grostate; Guilherme Blanco; Mathieu Rochette; Ben Scholzen =
'DASPRiD'; Sara Golemon; PHP internals; Mathieu
> Rochette
> Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC:generics]
>=20
> > I really don't like 'as' in this context, even if Hack uses it, as =
it
> > doesn't reflect in English terms what the code is doing. As others
> > have already said, it reads as if 'T' is being aliased to 'Bar'.
>=20
> I second that.
>=20
> I hear the concerns about adding another reserved word "is" though, so =
I'd like to suggest simply using a ":" ... as in:
>=20
>     class A<T : T1> { ... }

In this case I would suggest to use class A<T <: T1> which leaves room =
open to define lower bounds later on (either with <: as well or with :> =
as in scala)

>=20
> Consistent with return type-hints, it should feel like home?
>=20
> For sure nobody wants to type out "instanceof", and (as pointed out in =
the RFC) the instanceof operator checks the type of
> an object, which is *not* what this is doing - a type argument is not =
an "instance of" anything. The ":" is more neutral in that
> regard maybe?
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Josh Di Fabio =
<joshdifabio@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Dominic Grostate
> > <codekestrel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for you're input everyone.
> >>
> >> So far, we have read some ideas for handling upper bounds, or
> >> multiple there of.
> >> The preferred keywords appear to be either "as" or "instanceof".
> >>
> >> class Foo<T as Bar> {}
> >> class Foo<T instanceof Bar> {}
> >>
> >> We would like to know for sure then if everyone is largely against
> >> the addition of an "is" keyword, in favour of one of the other two.
> >>
> >
> > I really don't like 'as' in this context, even if Hack uses it, as =
it
> > doesn't reflect in English terms what the code is doing. As others
> > have already said, it reads as if 'T' is being aliased to 'Bar'.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Dominic Grostate
> > <codekestrel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for you're input everyone.
> >>
> >> So far, we have read some ideas for handling upper bounds, or
> >> multiple there of.
> >> The preferred keywords appear to be either "as" or "instanceof".
> >>
> >> class Foo<T as Bar> {}
> >> class Foo<T instanceof Bar> {}
> >>
> >> We would like to know for sure then if everyone is largely against
> >> the addition of an "is" keyword, in favour of one of the other two.
> >>
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> There is also a desire to include unions and intersections.
> >> Presently though, this feature feels tied in with
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types meaning if union types are
> >> approved, then generics would have to support them as well.  =
Likewise
> >> if this feature becomes approved in generics, it would make sense =
to
> >> support them in regular type hints as well.
> >>
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> The RFC makes a reference to generic closures, which may look
> >> something like
> >> this:
> >>
> >> function my_function(callable<Foo, Bar> $func) {
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> However, an RFC already exists which is very similar to this =
feature
> >> at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable-types
> >> As it currently standards these RFCs appear incompatible with each
> >> other (please correct me if I am wrong).
> >>
> >> My question about this is would you prefer the generics RFC exclude
> >> this part in favour of a separate or later RFC.
> >> Initially the proposal included generic arrays "array<string>".
> >> However to ease the implementation it was decided that should be a =
separate feature.
> >> So we'd like to find out if everyone else feels the same way about
> >> callable types.
> >>
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> This RFC currently doesn't specify in detail how reflection would
> >> work.  We have attempted a few API designs, but due to generic =
classes being ...
> >> generic, it is difficult to find a suitable way to glean =
information
> >> about a class in a backwards compatible manner.  So we will need =
some
> >> help on this one.
> >>
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> Aside from these top issues on our own list, however does everyone
> >> feel about the proposal in general?
> >> As the RFC is still in draft, we will continue to make changes to =
it
> >> as more popular idea pop up, so please continue.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> PS: I wasn't properly subscribed to the mailing list, so I missed a
> >> few important messages that were mailed directly to internals, but
> >> hopefully I've managed to fix that now.
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, =
visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php