Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93993 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86248 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2016 03:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jun 2016 03:32:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sebastian@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sebastian@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 188.94.27.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sebastian@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 188.94.27.5 scarlet.netpirates.net Received: from [188.94.27.5] ([188.94.27.5:39132] helo=scarlet.netpirates.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 87/2A-27860-F2CC0675 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 23:32:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 2352 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jun 2016 03:31:55 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 2343, pid: 2347, t: 0.4090s scanners: attach: 1.4.0 clamav: 0.99.1/m:/d:20700 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.52.195?) (php@sebastian-bergmann.de@188.111.11.34) by scarlet.netpirates.net with ESMTPA; 15 Jun 2016 03:31:54 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <8d26c709-2083-40ac-3bb5-cddc0ecef4bd@gmail.com> <6B3C4F2A-22D6-4004-9F14-5E43EA8AD52A@zend.com> Message-ID: <6322c4bb-478b-8875-d4ee-3b46ecdb1ba1@php.net> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:31:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6B3C4F2A-22D6-4004-9F14-5E43EA8AD52A@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-8-i Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types From: sebastian@php.net (Sebastian Bergmann) On 06/14/2016 08:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I'm personally against Union types because it makes no sense for classes, and for scalars we're better off with dedicated solution a (e.g. "numeric"); Same reason I voted no.