Re: [RFC] Nullable Types

I read the RFC and it all sounds good to me. I appreciate the care taken to ensure method compatibility rules are correct, a smooth interop with =null, and to consider impact on union types if added later (? just becomes sugar). I'm not sure if it's been mentioned or not, but the position of the ? has impact on the ability to add a foo[] shorthand for generic arrays. Namely, if the ? is at the start, then the syntax becomes ambiguous. string[]? (nullable array of strings) string?[] (array of nullable strings) ?string[] (ambiguous, need to consult precedence rules and/or use brackets) I'm not sure how HHVM/Hack deals with that, or if it even has the foo[] shorthand. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com> 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 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >