On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Tom Worster <f...@thefsb.org> wrote:
> I would like to introduce for discussion an RFC proposing and arguing for
> Nullable Return Type Declaration in 7.1 and deferring for now more general
> relaxations of 7.0 type as proposed in Levi's two RFCs.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_returns
>
> If anyone would like to collaborate on the RFC, I have a repo you may fork:
> https://gist.github.com/tom--/e95a10fbe4d34f8a72c9 (although guthub's
> formatting isn't lovely). I'm looking for help with implementation.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
I can appreciate that you want only the restricted union with null.
However, I do not see the point of disallowing it for parameter types
while allowing it for return types:
function setLeft(Node $n = null) {
$this->left = $n;
$this->updateHeight();
}
Why disallow the explicit union with null here instead of the default
parameter which does not exactly capture the desired semantics?
Calling `$node->setLeft()` is just odd, almost as if it was a mistake.
I would much prefer `$node->setLeft(null)` here. Basically, if we have
a feature for return types that exactly matches the semantics that we
occasionally want for the parameter types why forbid it?
Additionally, on occasion I'll see functions like this:
function foo(Bar $b = null, $not_optional_param);
Why not allow nullable types on parameters to avoid that wonkiness
caused by default values of null?
function foo(Bar | Null $b, $not_optional_param);
This is much better.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
