RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:38:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-94010@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> -----Original Message-----
> From: morrison.levi@gmail.com [mailto:morrison.levi@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Levi Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:51 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
> Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Union types
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> > There are more than enough constructs in PHP to handle all these use
> > cases, and handle them nicely. We don't need specialized constructs
> > for every use case.
>
> To clarify here, you are saying we don't need unions because they are a
> special case, yes? But you previously stated you are in favor of special casing
> the language types such as numeric?
>
> These are at odds.
They're not. Let me supplement what I said:
We don't need specialized constructs for every use case; They make sense for ultra-common ones
only, and only if the added benefit (compared to doing it using the methods currently available)
outweighs the increased cognitive burden.
Hence, 'numeric' makes perfect sense, while a generic Union Types feature does not.
Zeev