Re: Unified ReflectionType methods

Hi Andreas, > Hello list, > I would like to propose new methods for ReflectionType, that would > allow treating ReflectionNamedType and ReflectionUnionType in a > unified way. > This would eliminate the need for if (.. instanceof) in many use cases. > > Some details can still be discussed, e.g. whether 'null' should be > included in builtin type names, whether there should be a canonical > ordering of type names, whether we should use class names as array > keys, etc. > ... > What do you think? Relatedly, I also had different ideas lately about new methods for ReflectionType, though of a different form. 1. To simplify code that would check instanceof for all current and future types such as never and mixed and intersection types ReflectionType->allowsValue(mixed $value, bool $strict = true): bool Maybe also allowsClass(string $className, bool $strict = true): bool to avoid needing to instantiate values (weak casting allows Stringable->string). 2. To simplify code generation, e.g. in mocking libraries for unit testing: ReflectionType->toFullyQualifiedString(): string (e.g. \A|\B) (may need to throw ReflectionType for types that can't be resolved, e.g. parent in reflection of traits, keep static as is) (The raw output of __toString() isn't prefixed with \ (e.g. A&B) and can't be used in namespaces The fact that both intersection and union types (and possibility of union types of full intersection types) make it hard for me to believe that getBuiltinTypes and getBuiltinClasses would be used correctly when used. Thanks, Tyson