Re: [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types

Dmitry, Just to be clear, the nullable support in the implementation of union/intersection is not a suggestion, the patch will conform to whatever is decided by nullable types RFC. That was always the intention. Cheers Joe On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > Fully agree, I think we should move ahead with the nullable question > first, and swiftly. > > Happy for them to go to vote, tomorrow, if that was serious. > > Cheers > Joe > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Am 26.04.2016 um 15:33 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>: >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Levi Morrison <morrison.levi@gmail.com> >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 02:37 >> > To: internals >> > Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Patch for Union and Intersection Types >> > >> > Internals, >> > >> > Joe Watkins and Bob Weinand have worked out a [proof-of-concept patch >> > for union types][1]. Please go download it and experiment with it. >> > >> > A few things to note: >> > >> > * This patch includes intersection types. However, a type expression >> > must be either a union type or an intersection type; it doesn't >> > support both such as Array | (Countable & >> > Traversable). >> > * This patch adds null, IÜ'ã$zjùµ >> > ²?V9true and false for type declarations. >> > * This patch includes conversion rules for weak types. >> > * It does not have short-hand for unions with null >> > (?Foo being `Foo >> | Null`) >> > >> > These features (or omitted ones) are not necessarily what will be >> > voted on. Rather this patch allows us to experiment with these >> > features in code. This experience should be helpful for us to solidify >> > how we actually feel about these features. >> > >> > I especially would like people to try out the conversion rules for >> > scalar types as it has been a point of discussion. >> > >> > [1]: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1887 >> >> Hey Dmitry, >> >> Please, do not accuse us of blocking the nullables. This wasn't >> intentional and rather a coincidence that we provided a patch right now. >> First we wanted to concentrate our forces on getting a great 7.0 out >> before starting this RFC (as it didn't make it in time for going into 7.0 >> too as we waited for result on scalar types in general first). >> Then, as you're aware Levi had absolutely no time for a few months… Now, >> he has time to manage things and we could move ahead quickly and write the >> patch up. >> >> I'd like to hold first a formal (and binding) vote on whether "null |" or >> "?" should be used (in case both RFCs pass). Rushing things through right >> now might just us ending up with semantics the vast majority dislikes. >> >> Thanks, >> Bob > > >