On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:34 AM Máté Kocsis <kocsismat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alexandru, Mark, > > > > 1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and also > > there is no explanation why. > > > > Sorry for this, mentioning object as unsupported was an artifact from the > original version of the RFC which > was created back then when constants couldn't be objects. After your > comments, I removed the object type > from the list. Thank you for catching this issue! > > > > 2. In the examples for illegal values, it would be good to explain why > > they are not legal. > > I don't understand why "public const ?Foo M = null;" wouldn't be legal. > > I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be legal. > > > > It was there due to the same reason as above. I removed this example now. > > I had updated the RFC page, but it looks like the changes were reverted in > > December 2022. The updated version I was working on was: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants?rev=1648644637 > > > Yeah, the original author of the RFC was surprised to find your changes in > his RFC (https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5815#issuecomment-1356049048 > ), > so he restored his original version. > Next time, please either consult with the author of an RFC if you intend to > modify the wording, or you can simply create a brand new RFC - even if it's > very similar to the original one (just don't > forget to add proper references). > > The updated RFC looks good, thanks for working on it. You may want to > > review the revised version I had worked on for implementation ideas, and > > review the previous conversations. > > > > I also saw your proposal, but to be honest, I'm not that fond of the idea. > This doesn't mean though that you shouldn't create a new RFC or an > implementation, as others may find it useful. If you kick off > the project, I'll surely try to review your work. > > Regards, > Máté Kocsis > Typed constants is a great addition, thanks Máté!
