Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93111
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.91 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.3.160329
Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 09:54:11 -0400
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
CC: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>,
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Message-ID: <D354BAB0.6E01F%fsb@thefsb.org>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Pre-vote notice for Nullable Types
References: <CAFMT4NoBqMrNSP_6J8nzA6E_+UChkjUz0jCvhXy_GE9RV3r2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E0A60.4090506@thefsb.org>
 <CAF+90c-91Lh3h4TPr=9jVubxEk8tpm06dTk1FviAfPGjcg_SdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-91Lh3h4TPr=9jVubxEk8tpm06dTk1FviAfPGjcg_SdA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Pre-vote notice for Nullable Types
From: fsb@thefsb.org (Tom Worster)

On 5/7/16, 1:19 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

>This RFC has one primary vote and one secondary vote. The primary vote
>determines whether we want to add nullable types to our type system. The
>secondary vote decides how precisely this will happen, in this instance
>deciding whether nullable types will be restricted to return types only
>or not. This is a standard voting layout, with precedent in a number of
>other RFCs.
>
>The reason why the second vote must use a 1/2 majority is symmetry. You,
>as somebody who does not like nullable parameter types, argue from a
>perspective of one 2/3 majority RFC for introducing nullable returns and
>another 2/3 majority RFC for introducing nullable params. I, as somebody
>who thinks supporting this syntax only for returns is wildly
>inconsistent, will argue from a perspective of a 2/3 majority RFC for
>introducing nullable *types* and another 2/3 majority RFC for restricting
>them to return types only. Depending on the perspective this would
>require either a 2/3 majority, or a 1/3 "majority" for unrestricted
>nullable types. Using a 1/2 majority vote ensures that there is no bias
>for either choice.

The explanation is very clear. Thank you.

Tom


(Btw, I don't disagree about the inconsistency you mentioned. But I don't
think it's a wild inconsistency, rather a justified one, given our
context.)