Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92886
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.161.175 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Nrj4c+y+j7tMr42NoMTNq_9Xf9jGNo2jLFUy153K=ks7g@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:55:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_kPW8yiynJ=Qksjz_BCZ1FCwck28_+rCk1Jn94qUDh+fg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143312c6365f005318f3b0a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for
 only return values
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a1143312c6365f005318f3b0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Levi,

    Why do you need to block Dmitry's return type nullable RFC ?

    We need to move forward, that has an implementation, ready for a long
time, doesn't seem to block nullable parameter types rfc, either separately
or as part of unions.

    So, I'm not understanding why you need to hold up Dmitry any more.

    Please, explain.

Cheers
Joe

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> 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
> requires 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
> additional 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.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a1143312c6365f005318f3b0a--