Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94538
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <DF961D0B-959B-4A5A-90D5-F2862FC3328C@trowski.com>
References: <CAFMT4Noe07E9--sasW-Fiw5B1hFFZbXDG2_wumkfZCbqM9wh7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4NpooxRgd2g9eP_Ruw7f0Bfk20gF5qHbEFPscxCwt52awQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <60AC7828-990B-4B6D-A122-AB9C15C6DEAE@trowski.com> <CAFMT4NqJxznWGKE7XFoNwq1Fbf7J4jtOZS+WUcdhUJnV=wJi2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DF961D0B-959B-4A5A-90D5-F2862FC3328C@trowski.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:31:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4Npq-cV0Dyo3idkqKuBq8Kp-om+t0OwTFxEXtRdKSOOvyg@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
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] ReflectionType Improvements
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com> wrote:
> Hi Levi,
>
> On Jul 9, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com> wrote:
>
>
> Additionally, I propose adding a getName() method to ReflectionType that
> returns only the name of the type, regardless of nullability. Casting should
> 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 reflection
> 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.
>
>
> Good point, then I agree getName() should be in an extending class as in the
> RFC.
>
>
> 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`?
>
>
> This sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Aaron Piotrowski

This has been quiet for a few days. I am assuming this means there are
no objections. I will work on updating the RFC and revisit this as
soon as I can.