Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92905
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 207.46.100.118 as permitted sender)
To: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for
 only return values
Thread-Index: AQHRoWRe782dRDYm1kuNWD0UZVTnlZ+fm7+pgAALLYCAAAAymoAAAjiAgAACLoCAAA56AIAAAHIigAADwQCAAAE64oAAGk+AgAAI5w8=
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:19:23 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB17845B58A70BE24F99C49302BF650@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>
 <CAL=_i_kPW8yiynJ=Qksjz_BCZ1FCwck28_+rCk1Jn94qUDh+fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4No4atnAQ4oRYXLKLb4JGMBG=HMhWOi6JXs=K0HbKsANEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR0201MB17847220E76760C84BB5AACBBF650@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFMT4NpKOqqqDjXqkoZjRFaMuuhpsXvhgpnef3DPpk-toHN8wA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR0201MB1784A82C5FBADA86939A21CBBF650@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>,<D347E3DB.6DBF4%fsb@thefsb.org>
In-Reply-To: <D347E3DB.6DBF4%fsb@thefsb.org>
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 21:19:23.5324
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1783
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for
 only return values
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

More or less right. It's easy to archive the "right" goal, if you own the b=
oth football teams.

________________________________________
From: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:40:53 PM
To: Levi Morrison; Dmitry Stogov
Cc: internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types for=
 only return values

Levi,

From one reasonable point of view, Union and Nullable are in conflict with
each other. If one prefers Union then one might argue in favor of Union
over related but different proposals. When it comes to the vote, it's
difficult to support both except with the argument that "I can settle for
Nullable if Union doesn't pass vote", which, when you think about it, is
not really supporting both.

If Union goes to vote before anything else, voters will to take into
account what they expect to subsequently go to vote. So your stance
relative to that matters. Hence it's not really clear what you want while
you continue to own both.

This is how I understand Dmitry's concerns (correct me if I'm wrong,
Dmitry).

It would be easier to understand if you would *either* abandon Union (for
7.1) and throw your support behind Nullable *or* disown Nullable, let
Dmitry champion it, and the two RFCs to vote as alternatives.

I understand that you see Union as a kind of superset of Nullable (correct
me if I'm wrong) but when it comes to the voting, there's no fair way to
organize that. Someone's going to be unhappy.

Tom


On 4/28/16, 3:16 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

>Levi, I provided an implementation for your RFC on February 2015, and I
>would be glad if your RFC was accepted that time.
>Bit since that time you block it in respect to "Union Types"
>
>See conversation at PR https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1045
>
>I would be also glad if your "Nullable Types" RFC was accepted now, but I
>don't trust in your intention to support it.
>
>________________________________________
>From: morrison.levi@gmail.com <morrison.levi@gmail.com> on behalf of Levi
>Morrison <levim@php.net>
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:02:20 PM
>To: Dmitry Stogov
>Cc: Joe Watkins; internals; Tom Worster
>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Request to withdraw RFC's for nullable types
>for only return values
>
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>> Levi, I don't understand, why do you keep trying to own "Nullable
>>Types" RFC, if you like completely different "Union Types".
>
>I don't understand; I wrote the RFC. What do you mean, "keep trying to
>own" it? I wrote both Nullable Types and Union Types. Some view those
>RFC's as competing, but they can also be orthogonal. I see the value
>in having both.