Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93979 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 50776 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2016 20:25:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jun 2016 20:25:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.107 blu004-omc2s32.hotmail.com Received: from [65.55.111.107] ([65.55.111.107:55274] helo=BLU004-OMC2S32.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 89/A4-27860-C3860675 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:25:32 -0400 Received: from BLU436-SMTP178 ([65.55.111.71]) by BLU004-OMC2S32.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:25:30 -0700 X-TMN: [4UVCtvywepkfRSK3jaLsOQkN2uGT0nKA] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:25:25 +0200 CC: Stanislav Malyshev , Derick Rethans Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <8d26c709-2083-40ac-3bb5-cddc0ecef4bd@gmail.com> To: PHP internals X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2016 20:25:27.0773 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3A0C8D0:01D1C67A] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) > Am 14.06.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Fleshgrinder : >=20 > On 6/14/2016 8:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> 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 >=20 > Exactly what I question too especially because the other vote was so > overwhelmingly positive. If we'd voted first on unions (and had a separate vote whether to allow = null as type), I'm sure the vote would have been just as positive and = the nullables RFC not appeared at all. I'm personally guessing that people mainly wanted to see nullability _at = all_ rather than the specific "?" syntax. Thus there's a separate vote... Bob=