Dmitry, > "Foo | null" doesn't make sense without "Union Types".
I just said that in a chat room, and someone said "I prefer Bar | null over ?Bar, I find myself missing the ?". So maybe there is rationale for choosing a syntax for nullable first, independent of the question of return and params, and unions or intersections ? Levi, > Joe seems to just want nullables to have an outcome so it is no longer blocking typed properties. I want it to have the right outcome, but yes, basically ... get off my lawn :D I am persuaded that Bar | null could be perceived as clearer regardless of the introduction of multi types, it may be a worthwhile conversation/vote. Cheers Joe On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > "Foo | null" doesn't make sense without "Union Types". > Voting for one RFC first makes a preference and unfair. > > Voting for two different RFCs with 2/3 majority is not good as well. > But this is the best option from my point, in case both pass we may make > additional voting with simple majority "Union" or "Nullable" or > "Union+Nullable". > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > ________________________________________ > From: Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 17:47 > To: Dmitry Stogov > Cc: Bob Weinand; internals; Joe Watkins > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 04/26/2016 05:19 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: > >>> > >>> Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>: > >>> > >>> hi Levi, > >>> > >>> It looks like your "work" on "Nullable Types" RFC was intended to win > >>> time for this patch and block "Nullable Types" again. > >>> Actually, you have been blocking it for more than a year :( > >>> > >>> I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types". > >>> > >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types > >>> > >>> At least, it has up to date implementation. > >>> > >>> We discussed this internally 2-3 weeks ago, and my politeness (or/and > >>> stupidity) allowed you to pass your version for common discussion. > >>> Now I can see your real reason :( > >>> > >>> Both "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" may make sense, and both should > >>> be voted at the same time. > >>> Tomorrow is time to start voting. Right? > >>> > >>> Thanks. Dmitry. > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________________ > >>> From: Levi Morrison <morrison.l...@gmail.com> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 02:37 > >>> To: internals > >>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types > >>> > >>> Internals, > >>> > >>> Joe Watkins and Bob Weinand have worked out a [proof-of-concept patch > >>> for union types][1]. Please go download it and experiment with it. > >>> > >>> A few things to note: > >>> > >>> * This patch includes intersection types. However, a type expression > >>> must be either a union type or an intersection type; it doesn't > >>> support both such as `Array | (Countable & Traversable)`. > >>> * This patch adds `null`, `true` and `false` for type declarations. > >>> * This patch includes conversion rules for weak types. > >>> * It does not have short-hand for unions with null (`?Foo` being > `Foo | > >>> Null`) > >>> > >>> These features (or omitted ones) are not necessarily what will be > >>> voted on. Rather this patch allows us to experiment with these > >>> features in code. This experience should be helpful for us to solidify > >>> how we actually feel about these features. > >>> > >>> I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for > >>> scalar types as it has been a point of discussion. > >>> > >>> [1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1887 > >> > >> Hey Dmitry, > >> > >> Please, do not accuse us of blocking the nullables. This wasn't > >> intentional and rather a coincidence that we provided a patch right now. > >> First we wanted to concentrate our forces on getting a great 7.0 out > >> before starting this RFC (as it didn't make it in time for going into > 7.0 > >> too as we waited for result on scalar types in general first). > >> Then, as you're aware Levi had absolutely no time for a few months… Now, > >> he has time to manage things and we could move ahead quickly and write > the > >> patch up. > > > > I know, we all like to make our best for PHP. > > Sorry, if I was too emotional. > >> > >> I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" > or > >> "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through > right > >> now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority dislikes. > > > > I didn't exactly get, what do you propose. One RFC with voting for > > "Nullable" or "Union"? > > > > Thanks. Dmitry. > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the intention here is to decide whether we do the short-hand > syntax for nullable types or only the long-form. I can understand the > rationale of not having both or at least dis-allowing the syntax to > mix them. For example, I don't think anyone really likes allowing > this: `?Array | Travsersable` as . > > However, if the union types RFC does not pass then it seems odd (to me > at least) to use the expression `Foo | Null` instead of `?Foo`, but I > know Bob would like the long-form in all cases, hence why he would > like a vote. Joe seems to just want nullables to have an outcome so it > is no longer blocking typed properties. > > Is that a correct summary, Bob and Joe? >
