Re: [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types

On 04/26/2016 04:57 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

hi Levi, It looks like your "work" on "Nullable Types" RFC was intended to win time for this patch and block "Nullable Types" again. Actually, you have been blocking it for more than a year :( I'm going to push my own RFC for voting together with "Union Types". https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable_return_types At least, it has up to date implementation. We discussed this internally 2-3 weeks ago, and my politeness (or/and stupidity) allowed you to pass your version for common discussion. Now I can see your real reason :( Both "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" may make sense, and both should be voted at the same time. Tomorrow is time to start voting. Right? Thanks. Dmitry.

Dmitry, I agree that union types and nullable types should be voted at the same time. Union types is a large RFC and didn't have an implementation until now. I think it is important that we have an implementation to experiment wotj. I hope you can see how having an implementation to experiment with is essential for both RFCs. Please do not move any type related RFCs to voting; I am not attempting to sabatoge nullable types. Please do not make such accusations. Levi Morrisont Your "Nullable Types" RFC don't have up to date implementation. You took ownership on two competing RFCs, but make preference to one.

In our conversation, I took your point 3 times (delaying Nullable in 2015, delaying my RFC for a week (while you have time), sending your RFC instead of mine, because they proposed almost the same). I think, it's going to be fair, if now you take my point. I don't like to argue. You got what you liked. Now "Union Types" and "Nullable Types" should compete in fair way. Thanks. Dmitry.