> Am 14.06.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com>: > > On 6/14/2016 5:22 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: >> Not clear on some of the wording. When you say: >> >> "This RFC proposes a vote on whether ?Foo shall be replaced by Foo | >> null in general." >> >> Do you mean that ?Foo will no longer be allowed at all if this RFCs >> passes? >> >> cheers, >> Derick >> > > Same question here, since https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_types > already passed and directly voiding it makes no sense. > > I mentioned this before but maybe it is better to change the RFC to > disallow the question mark if an union type is in use: > > # OK > > ?string > null|string > string|null > > ?SomeClass > > SomeClass|SomeOtherClass|null > null|SomeClass|SomeOtherClass > SomeClass|null|SomeOtherClass > > # BAD > > ?SomeClass|SomeOtherClass > ?SomeOtherClass|SomeClass > > ?string|int > ?int|string > > This would be a perfectly valid and reasonable restriction that makes > sense in every way because it helps to avoid ambiguity. However, > disallowing ?T is not. > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger >
These last ones (which you describe as "BAD" are anyway disallowed. The separate vote is to remove ?string by string | null as only option. (It basically just preserves the concept of nullability, but reverses the decision to use a trailing ?. This vote is in order to give those who prefer only foo | null instead of ?foo a chance to voice their opinion.) Bob -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
