Re: [RFC] Union Types v2
| From: | Sara Golemon | Date: | Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:05:57 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Union Types v2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-107317@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:24 PM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The choice of supporting precisely the two literal values
null
> and
false
> is not arbitrary: They are the two values that are the most often used as
> sentinel values (for indicating failure or absence). It is true that
true is
> also sometimes used as sentinel value (more rarely and not among the
> internal functions), but the same can be said of other literal values
> (one of your examples includes 0).
>
While I personally think false makes sense as an allowed "type", I also
don't want to see the union types RFC get held up on such a tiny detail.
I would propose either of the following alternatives:
1/ Remove false from the proposal. It can always be added at a later
time, but not taken away.
2/ Make this detail a sub-vote. I would suggest that this sub-vote should
also be subject to a 2/3 majority in order to pass.
-Sara