On 4/14/16, 1:33 PM, "Fleshgrinder" <p...@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:
>On 4/14/2016 6:35 PM, Levi Morrison wrote: >>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 >> >My guess is that this RFC only wants to get it for return because it >might be an easier vote? Hi Richard, That wasn't really my intent. I tried to set out my argument contra nullable param type in the RFC and elaborate it in my answer to Levi, which I hope you read. My attitude to programming reversed since 10 years ago. I used to prefer to have all the options and be allowed to exercise my judgement. But over those years I had to remain responsible for most of my code, which led to a blinding conversion. Now I am so acutely aware of how likely I am to write bugs that I more often than not want the language to get smaller. My sense is that nullable params won't turn out to be one of the good parts, in the Crockford sense. Something|null return, otoh, is so established as a convention I can't imagine getting away from it. I'm aware that some people won't understand my point of view. If that's still the case, ask again and I'll try a different answer. Tom -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
