Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98293
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuQfW_3E7CRDDjZ=HTJS6LcsAgfU8dgRvarMDtWO6443Xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuS7BJyJOo0p-+8CF+bKy5oTLWLJVygA=u89iNHPXjENRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nqiv0ThgVRza2oaReDhGzSN0hOtWLyW=qDvc3yVNhd_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuQZTLKDDbbJXDjJTkkPCK_0Jfwrek-jVg94x9wEoqQnFw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuQfW_3E7CRDDjZ=HTJS6LcsAgfU8dgRvarMDtWO6443Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:14:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NoC6BBbP=ifeeYdSjOBNiiUpj_q3fP_EJTN-h62hov6Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Object type hint, now with added variance
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrot=
e:
> Hi Levi,
>
> On 24 November 2016 at 08:58, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:
>> Hi Levi,
>>
>> On 23 November 2016 at 01:25, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For instance enumerations (or enums) are one possible type I can see us
>>> adding that may not be objects.
>>
>> I very much look forward to the RFC for enums, and have for some time.
>> When are you thinking of submitting it for discussion and voting?
>
> I can understand your concerns. At the same time, I hope you can
> understand that people won't want to put off introducing features that
> they want in the meantime.
>
> I think if you were able to give a timeline for when an Enum RFC could
> be introduced, before the PHP 7.2 release, we could talk about whether
> it would be right to hold off on this RFC for now.
>
> Otherwise I suggest Micha=C5=82 updates the voting options, and we open t=
he
> voting in a week or so.
>
> cheers
> Dan

Let me clarify that I'm not against this object variance; there is
nothing intrinsic about object variance that prevents enums (or
typedefs/type aliases). Rather it's *how* it is achieving that
variance that is an issue. This is something that should ship along
with full covariance/contravariance and not be a special case which
may unintended side-effects later (such as preventing enums without
breaking BC). Does that make sense?