Balls.. Void my last comment..
On 26 Apr 2016 4:42 p.m., "Dominic Grostate" <codekest...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Is this RFC going to play nice with Void return types?
>
> If we get unions, then doesn't it follow that the declaration goes as this?
>
> function foo(A | B $val = null): JustChill | void
> {}
>
> That's a nullable typehint and a nullable return type surely.
> On 26 Apr 2016 4:07 p.m., "Joe Watkins" <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>> >
>>
>
