Re: [RFC] Nullable Types

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Levi Morrison wrote: > As alluded to in an earlier email today[1] I am now moving the > Nullable Types RFC[2] to the discussion phase. In a nutshell this RFC > proposes syntax for declaring a type to alternatively be null. > > There is a decision that needs to be made: does the question mark go > before or after the type name? > > function (?Foo $foo); > function (Foo? $foo); > > There are precedents in several languages for each position. Some > relevant issues to where the question mark goes are noted in the > RFC[3]. Please put it where HHVM puts it: in front of it. Other languages are less of an issue than a syntax that's already used in a somewhat PHP language. As to the rest of the RFC: LGTM! cheers, Derick