On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
>>
>>> The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be
>>> consistent with our existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays,
>>> NULL is not accepted by default, unless the parameter is explicitly given a
>>> default value of NULL. This would work well with the draft Declaring
>>> Nullable Types RFC.
>>
>> This proposal has a different behavior here. It explicitly allows
>> nulls for types:
>>
>> function foo(int $abc) { var_dump($abc); }
>>
>> Unlike my proposal and any of Andrea's, calling foo(null) will be
>> int(0) instead of an error.
>>
>> This is an important distinction as it basically undermines any
>> attempt at a nullable RFC, since it makes primitives implicitly
>> nullable.
>>
>> Anthony.
>
> Anthony,
>
> I think you've got something wrong there. It won't undermine an attempt at a
> nullable RFC.
>
> In the weak scalar typing world, nullables won't change what we accept, but
> what we receive.
>
> function (int|null $abc) { var_dump($abc); }
> (or ?int or whatever syntax we will use)
>
> would allow null to *not* be casted here.
> Means foo(null) will lead to $abc being null and not int(0) with that
> signature.
I think allowing `null` for an `int` is an error. Converting a null to
zero on a type boundary is harmful in my opinion.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
