On the subject of using GitHub for this RFC: Personally, I think GitHub is a much better platform than the mailing list for this kind of discussion. Mailing list threads are just not very accessible to the average PHP user. Reading them through externals.io is an OK experience, but actually contributing is unnecessarily complicated.
I'd imagine most people aren't really interested in something like the recent "Annotating internal function argument and return types" thread, but would very much like to participate in a discussion (even if it's just leaving a "+1") about something that affects their day-to-day work, like union types. Generally, I'd split things up like this: Truly internal work on PHP itself, things only people working *on* PHP (as opposed to *with* PHP) really care about -> internals. Changes affecting regular PHP users, RFCs for adding or removing features and things like that -> GitHub or some other platform where everyone can easily contribute. On 04.09.19 10:26, Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > I'd like to start the discussion on union types again, with a new proposal: > > Pull Request: https://github.com/php/php-rfcs/pull/1 > Rendered Proposal: > https://github.com/nikic/php-rfcs/blob/union-types/rfcs/0000-union-types-v2.md > > As an experiment, I'm submitting this RFC as a GitHub pull request, to > evaluate whether this might be a better medium for RFC proposals in the > future. It would be great if we could keep the discussion to the GitHub > pull request for the purpose of this experiment (keep in mind that you can > also create comments on specific lines in the proposal, not just the > overall discussion thread!) Of course, you can also reply to this mail > instead. The final vote will be held in the wiki as usual. > > Relatively to the previous proposal by Bob&Levi ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/union_types), I think the main differences in this > proposal are: > * Updated to specify interaction with new language features, like full > variance and property types. > * Updated for the use of the ?Type syntax rather than the Type|null syntax. > * Only supports "false" as a pseudo-type, not "true". > * Slightly simplified semantics for the coercive typing mode. > > Regards, > Nikita >
