Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99075
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CABdc3WrBVOUDuohP1RrFhQTv==otTGHuKuMe-JVD2DU2EaHDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdc3WrBVOUDuohP1RrFhQTv==otTGHuKuMe-JVD2DU2EaHDRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 08:47:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NqTKJ0fjQbJr1h7bQBXsO2gzpAOM=k_9wrgaCjQA4tgmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Brzuchalski?= <michal@brzuchalski.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c08ebd245151e054fb95de7"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Object typehint RFC
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

--94eb2c08ebd245151e054fb95de7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski <michal@brzuchalsk=
i.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to put Object Type RFC up to a vote for inclusion in PHP 7.2=
.
>
> Previously there were some concerns about adding named types in the futur=
e,
> but we came to the conclusion that each of them can be solved if there ar=
e
> proposals in the future.
>
> Voting starts today, 2017-05-17, and will close after two weeks on the
> Wednesday 2017-05-31 at midnight.
>
> The RFC and voting widget can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/
> rfc/object-typehint
>
> The vote is a straight Yes/No vote for accepting the RFC and merging the
> patch which require 2/3 majority.
> The additional vote is also a straight Yes/No vote for accepting variance
> behaviour on the object type which also require 2/3 majority.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> regards / pozdrawiam,
> --
> Micha=C5=82 Brzuchalski
> about.me/brzuchal
> brzuchalski.com
>

An emphatic "no" on variance for me. This is for two over-arching reasons:

  1. Object variance should be implemented when we have generalized
variance for all types. By special casing it now we open ourselves to the
possibility that its implementation or semantics will differ from the
generalized solution.

  2. The way it is implemented prevents us from adding new types which are
not objects. The reason is that the way this is implemented it just assumes
that an unknown type is an object type. If we add a feature such as an
enumerations (enums) this assumption probably breaks and cannot be fixed
while maintaining BC as it would almost certainly need to trigger an
autoload.

Given these two points I think it's unwise to implement variance as
outlined. I highly encourage other voters to vote against that portion of
the RFC.

-----

Lastly, I want to thank Dan and Michal for working on this RFC as an object
type even without variance would have been useful for me in the past.

--94eb2c08ebd245151e054fb95de7--