Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants
| From: | Flávio Heleno | Date: | Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:36:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-119459@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:34 AM Máté Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
Typed constants is a great addition, thanks Máté!