Re: [RFC] Basic Scalar Types

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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. I think allowing null for an int is an error. Converting a null to zero on a type boundary is harmful in my opinion.