On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Levi Morrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Niklas Keller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 2016-04-26 16:58 GMT+02:00 Bob Weinand <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'd like to not allow ?Foo in any case if union types pass.
>>
>>
>> What's the reason for that? To me, null is neither a type nor should it be.
>
> On the contrary, our manual says:
>
>> NULL is the only possible value of type null.
>
> And internally it is also a distinct type.
>
> It's been this way for a long time; we just haven't permitted `null`
> as a type declaration because until now it has been useless.
To further expand on why it was previously useless:
function foo(Null $a) {
return $a;
}
There is only one possibility for this parameter, which is the value
`NULL`. There is hardly any value to it when you can just write this
instead:
function foo() {
return NULL;
}
In words: if the only possible value for a parameter is null then it's
not really a parameter; it's just a constant value and doesn't need to
be parameterized.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
