Re: [RFC] Mixed type

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 13:18, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com> wrote: > I would love to see mixed being added as it lets me remove a lot of > docblocks that are only added so I can indicate mixed. I disagree that it's > patching holes, it's filling a gap that's currently missing something. > I realise it's partly a matter of style, but if I were benevolent dictator of a legacy code base, I'd prefer to keep the docblocks, and mandate that all uses of "mixed" should include a comment describing what the parameter / return type represents / is related to. Similarly, I wouldn't delete a docblock for a return type of "array", because I'd want more specific details (either using "type[]" syntax, "list<type>" syntax, or a comment describing the "shape" of the array). I'm not as strongly against adding "mixed" to the language as Bob, but I'm not convinced I'd ever bother using it. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]