Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93969
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 40.107.70.135 as permitted sender)
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
CC: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, PHP internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types
Thread-Index: AQHRxk1UiCsarQhIYkaji+gxB/0N7J/pFJIAgAANMoCAAAdngIAAF2WAgAAOobQ=
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:52:28 +0000
Message-ID: <6B3C4F2A-22D6-4004-9F14-5E43EA8AD52A@zend.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP259DA83A3D76B48FDB9F28AE2540@phx.gbl>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1606141621580.4314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <a4c32728-2ce6-dc6a-70cb-2c0241f31f91@fleshgrinder.com>
 <BLU437-SMTP5110966FC3D3866E4A3E05E2540@phx.gbl>,<8d26c709-2083-40ac-3bb5-cddc0ecef4bd@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d26c709-2083-40ac-3bb5-cddc0ecef4bd@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: zend.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8-i"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jun 2016 18:52:28.4074
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR02MB299
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)



> On 14 =E1=E9=E5=F0=E9 2016, at 21:00, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
>> The separate vote is to remove ?string by string | null as only option.
>=20
> So we just held a vote on introducing ?type a month ago, to now vote on
> removing it. Am I the only one to whom it doesn't make a lot of sense?
>=20

I actually think this was discussed ahead of time.  The thinking was that w=
e'll approve (or reject) nullable types independently without having to wai=
t for union types.  If Union types passed - we'd reconsider the syntax for =
it.

I think we need to clarify the vote here.  I'm personally against Union typ=
es because it makes no sense for classes, and for scalars we're better off =
with dedicated solution a (e.g. "numeric");  but if it does pass, I'd rathe=
r have just one way of doing nullable types and not two.

Zeev