Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants

Hi Alexandru, Mark, > 1. Why is object type not supported? I can't see a real reason and also > there is no explanation why. > Sorry for this, mentioning object as unsupported was an artifact from the original version of the RFC which was created back then when constants couldn't be objects. After your comments, I removed the object type from the list. Thank you for catching this issue! > 2. In the examples for illegal values, it would be good to explain why > they are not legal. > I don't understand why "public const ?Foo M = null;" wouldn't be legal. > I think "?Foo" should work the same as "Foo|null" that would be legal. > > It was there due to the same reason as above. I removed this example now. I had updated the RFC page, but it looks like the changes were reverted in > December 2022. The updated version I was working on was: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed_class_constants?rev=1648644637 Yeah, the original author of the RFC was surprised to find your changes in his RFC (https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5815#issuecomment-1356049048), so he restored his original version. Next time, please either consult with the author of an RFC if you intend to modify the wording, or you can simply create a brand new RFC - even if it's very similar to the original one (just don't forget to add proper references). The updated RFC looks good, thanks for working on it. You may want to > review the revised version I had worked on for implementation ideas, and > review the previous conversations. > I also saw your proposal, but to be honest, I'm not that fond of the idea. This doesn't mean though that you shouldn't create a new RFC or an implementation, as others may find it useful. If you kick off the project, I'll surely try to review your work. Regards, Máté Kocsis