Re: [RFC] Nullable Return Type Declaration
| From: | Fleshgrinder | Date: | Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:33:23 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Nullable Return Type Declaration | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-92307@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 4/14/2016 6:35 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> wrote:
>> I would like to introduce for discussion an RFC proposing and arguing for
>> Nullable Return Type Declaration in 7.1 and deferring for now more general
>> relaxations of 7.0 type as proposed in Levi's two RFCs.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_returns
>>
>> If anyone would like to collaborate on the RFC, I have a repo you may fork:
>> https://gist.github.com/tom--/e95a10fbe4d34f8a72c9
>> (although guthub's
>> formatting isn't lovely). I'm looking for help with implementation.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>
> I can appreciate that you want only the restricted union with null.
> However, I do not see the point of disallowing it for parameter types
> while allowing it for return types:
>
> function setLeft(Node $n = null) {
> $this->left = $n;
> $this->updateHeight();
> }
>
> Why disallow the explicit union with null here instead of the default
> parameter which does not exactly capture the desired semantics?
> Calling
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc
$node->setLeft() is just odd, almost as if it was a
> mistake.
> I would much prefer $node->setLeft(null) here. Basically, if
> we have
> a feature for return types that exactly matches the semantics that we
> occasionally want for the parameter types why forbid it?
>
> Additionally, on occasion I'll see functions like this:
>
> function foo(Bar $b = null, $not_optional_param);
>
> Why not allow nullable types on parameters to avoid that wonkiness
> caused by default values of null?
>
> function foo(Bar | Null $b, $not_optional_param);
>
> This is much better.
>
My guess is that this RFC only wants to get it for return because it
might be an easier vote?
I do not like the fact that only the long version of union types is
supported and prefer the question mark approach as a short hand. Can
this RFC be either extended to include that as well or removed so it
does not get in the way of the other two RFCs?
--
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc