Re: [RFC] Nullable Types

On 4/14/2016 5:42 AM, 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]. > > I look forward to a helpful and meaningful discussion! > > [1]: http://news.php.net/php.internals/92252 > [2]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_types > [3]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_types#position_of > I have to agree with the question mark in front after reading the possible problems with the question mark as a suffix, the fact that HHVM already puts it in front, and the argument to read it as "nullable type" instead of "type or null". :) +1 -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc