Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95504
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain telia.com from 81.236.60.154 cause and error)
To: Igor Inas <igor.inas@gmail.com>
References: <CADKsZO1U-AL0_2WkOry6dh=oAeF_oRD-Z6G+93c9BqVffbL-_A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <4705db52-c97b-6b16-aeb2-48fc7adb24a6@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:21:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADKsZO1U-AL0_2WkOry6dh=oAeF_oRD-Z6G+93c9BqVffbL-_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Nullable types before union types
From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=)

I think you will find information about this in the threads
for discussion and voting regarding Nullable types RFC:

- https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=146060540111128
- https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=146289381815830
- https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_types

Regards //Björn Larsson

Den 2016-08-29 kl. 15:36, skrev Igor Inas:
> Hello,
>
> same as last post in the mailing list - this may have been suggested before
> - but I had hard time finding it in the archives.
>
> Coming from static typed languages, I love the addition of return type
> annotations and extension of parameter type annotations. I also love the
> fact, that types are not nullable by default.
>
> I am reading about the proposal to add nullable types before union types
> are fully implemented. This would be done by utilizing question mark (int?
> /  ?int).
>
> My question is: would it be too difficult to implement nullable types using
> syntax of union types, but semantically, only max two types would be
> allowed in the union and one of them would have to be null. So only allowed
> forms would be:
> - int | null
> - null | int
>
> I am thinking about the future, when union types become implemented and
> suddenly there would be two ways how to annotate the same nullable type:
> - int | null
> - int?
>
> Thanks for more insights,
> Regards,
> Igor
>