Am 19.12.2017 um 21:53 schrieb Fleshgrinder:
On 12/19/2017 8:01 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
but that's a different thing and both don't collide
It's not a different thing, that's what I try to tell you. They do not
collide, of course not, but having the others is going to make mixed
useless.
In other words: if there is no type left to constraint to, it must be
the top type. (Note that we already have the ability to constraint to
the bottom type void.)
Other languages invest quite some time into getting rid of annotating
their top types (and type inversion) and we already have this
functionality and you (not you in person but the collective here asking
for it) want to introduce it. Stanislav is right, this type would be
there for no technical reason.
It is only for cosmetics or maybe to allow people to say "my codebase is
fully type constrained". Which is literally a meaningless statement.
yes, it's mostly cosmetic (frankly even the OP statet this in the
initial mail) but if that comes witout a noticebale price to pay why not?
"It's a simple alias for the current behavior of no type and is fully
interchangeable" sounds like it could even be optimized out at compile
time of the script - so "you don't need it" is not much compelling for me
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
