Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93721 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 695 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2016 17:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2016 17:11:31 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 90.203.31.31 unknown Received: from [90.203.31.31] ([90.203.31.31:20349] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0A/C5-62101-1C860575 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:11:30 -0400 Message-ID: <0A.C5.62101.1C860575@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:11:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Posted-By: 90.203.31.31 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PRE-VOTE] Union types From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Bob, Bob Weinand wrote: > Hey all, > > I know, it has been quite some time … but it's still well in time for 7.1. > > Time to move on and put Union types to vote soon. [In the next 1-2 days] > > We have done some changes to the RFC to emphasize the appeal of union types as well as clarified what exactly we will vote on. > > If you have more feedback, it's welcome: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types I do wonder if 1-2 days is really sufficient time, given that before now, the only announced RFC had been substantially less complete. That aside, the behaviour the RFC now specifies for how weak typing interacts with union types is frighteningly complicated. I don't see how it could be anything other than that, but the new complexity this introduces to PHP is enough for me to vote against this RFC, even ignoring my other concerns. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/