Re: [RFC] Basic Scalar Types

> Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>: > > Andrea's RFC had the following wording: > >> The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be consistent with our >> existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays, NULL is not accepted by default, unless the >> parameter is explicitly given a default value of NULL. This would work well with the draft Declaring >> Nullable Types RFC. > > This proposal has a different behavior here. It explicitly allows > nulls for types: > > function foo(int $abc) { var_dump($abc); } > > Unlike my proposal and any of Andrea's, calling foo(null) will be > int(0) instead of an error. > > This is an important distinction as it basically undermines any > attempt at a nullable RFC, since it makes primitives implicitly > nullable. > > Anthony. Anthony, I think you've got something wrong there. It won't undermine an attempt at a nullable RFC. In the weak scalar typing world, nullables won't change what we accept, but what we receive. function (int|null $abc) { var_dump($abc); } (or ?int or whatever syntax we will use) would allow null to *not* be casted here. Means foo(null) will lead to $abc being null and not int(0) with that signature. Bob