Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92885
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 157.56.110.105 as permitted sender)
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Thread-Topic: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for only return
 values
Thread-Index: AQHRoWRe782dRDYm1kuNWD0UZVTnlZ+fm7+pgAALLYCAAAAymoAAAjiAgAAAruM=
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:55:05 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB1784C40F1A0240226F87BA4BBF650@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAFMT4NpBi80uJ-_-==4Wd5h87k=fq3h7N9ygph1kCHg9Czc_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR0201MB17848D27325287FFD9785771BF650@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAFMT4Nr+m4LVQC81+quTwzhu1tSzLq=Zd_fvJwpo_HfnNshSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR0201MB178472C732BF8DEE68D8D940BF650@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>,<CAFMT4Nrj4c+y+j7tMr42NoMTNq_9Xf9jGNo2jLFUy153K=ks7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Nrj4c+y+j7tMr42NoMTNq_9Xf9jGNo2jLFUy153K=ks7g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Apr 2016 17:55:05.0628
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1781
Subject: Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for only return
 values
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

I'm not happy with the fact, that you propose two competing RFCs, support o=
nly one and trying to withdraw other competitors.

________________________________________
From: morrison.levi@gmail.com <morrison.levi@gmail.com> on behalf of Levi M=
orrison <levim@php.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:47:41 PM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: internals; Tom Worster
Subject: Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for only return v=
alues

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> your Nullable RFC doesn't propose working implementation.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: morrison.levi@gmail.com <morrison.levi@gmail.com> on behalf of Levi=
 Morrison <levim@php.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:39:03 PM
> To: Dmitry Stogov
> Cc: internals; Tom Worster
> Subject: Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for only return=
 values
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for catching the BC break.
>> Fortunately, we didn't release 7.0.6 with this problem.
>>
>> I see some sense in introducing that check, but changing behaviour requi=
res RFC and definitely not allowed in minor versions.
>>
>> I'm not going to withdraw https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types
>> It doesn't prohibit usage of nullable for arguments, and even sets addit=
ional question.
>
> In that case: are you fine with my RFCs going to vote first (and
> soon)? We presently have four somewhat competing RFCs and need to work
> out voting order.
>
> Tom: are you willing to withdraw or wait for my RFCs to vote first?

It doesn't have an implementation, sure. But you already worked out
return types, the basics are already there in parameter types and
there's an implementation in HHVM. Do you really think this would be a
blocker? There is no reason to believe that a short-hand nullable
types implementation cannot be reasonably done.