Re: [VOTE] [RFC] Bound-Erased Generic Types

at 05:46, Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 14, 2026, at 4:07 pm, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: >> OTOH, generics getting voted down (for whatever reason) would be... very bad press, both >> within the community and externally. > > I think you’re overstating the external impact. This would have been bad PR a decade ago, but > today PHP language evolution is not front of mind for many outside the PHP community. > > I believe (from discussions in the list and online) that most of the people who voted it down > have done so due to a very clear philosophical objection to partially-erased types. Those people do > not want the biggest potential follow-on from this RFC, which is language support for erased generic > array<string>, a construct which has existed in docblocks for > a couple of decades. > > I think it’s useful to have these decisions written in stone. > > I don’t believe there’s a better proposal for erased generics than this one. In the future, > when someone asks why PHP doesn’t have erased generics, we can point to this vote. I agree 100%, voters should take responsibility for their own actions, instead of asking to hold off the vote indefinitely, constantly requesting changes. If this RFC is rejected, PHP won’t have generics (at least not in 2026/the first half of 2027 due to the cooling off period of RFCs of the same type). Kind regards, Daniil Gentili.