Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94454
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <60AC7828-990B-4B6D-A122-AB9C15C6DEAE@trowski.com>
References: <CAFMT4Noe07E9--sasW-Fiw5B1hFFZbXDG2_wumkfZCbqM9wh7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NpooxRgd2g9eP_Ruw7f0Bfk20gF5qHbEFPscxCwt52awQ@mail.gmail.com> <60AC7828-990B-4B6D-A122-AB9C15C6DEAE@trowski.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:12:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NqJxznWGKE7XFoNwq1Fbf7J4jtOZS+WUcdhUJnV=wJi2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, 
	Davey Shafik <davey@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Vote] ReflectionType Improvements
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The final vote was 5 in favor and 8 against. This RFC has been rejected.
>>
>
> While this RFC was rejected, ReflectionType::__toString() should still be=
 updated to include a ? for nullable types. This is a consequence of the nu=
llable types RFC. As mentioned in this RFC [1], the string representation o=
f ReflectionType should be a syntax-valid representation of the type. Witho=
ut adding ?, this will no longer be true. I do not view this as a BC break.=
 In fact, it is a BC break for PHPUnit, PHPSpec, and Mockery to not make th=
is change, as they currently depend on the string representation of Reflect=
ionType to generate code compatible with the parent class or interface.
>
> Additionally, I propose adding a getName() method to ReflectionType that =
returns only the name of the type, regardless of nullability. Casting shoul=
d not be required to get information from an object, but currently this is =
the only way to get the type name from ReflectionType. Most other reflectio=
n classes include a getName() method, this seems to have been an oversight.

This wasn't an oversight. If we add union or intersection types then
not all types are named (for instance `ArrayAccess & Countable &
Traversable` is not a named type). This is why it doesn't exist on the
base ReflectionType.

I have surveyed some of the people who have voted no. Their reasons
vary but based on these conversations it seems to me that by dropping
ReflectionClassType and the associated autoloading mechanism that
overall we'd be happier. I do agree with Aaron that at least *some*
changes really need to go into 7.1. How do people feel about my
proposal to just drop autoloading and `ReflectionClassType`?