On Sat, Jul 24, 2021, at 12:33 AM, Tobias Nyholm wrote:
> >> @Larry makes an argument to keep them:
> >>
> >>> Requiring parenthesis now leaves the option open in the future to make
> >>> them optional when doing full mixed types.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t understand why we should require
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 11:58 Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> as proposed by Nikita and Joe, I'm submitting this late RFC for your
> consideration for inclusion in PHP 8.1. Intersection types as currently
> accepted are not nullable. This RFC proposes to make them so.
>
> I wrote
> That is a strange attitude. You are saying that you rather see a release with
> a [known] flaw than actually trying to find the best solution.
Sorry, but sometimes features take time either due to technical
reasons (variance was difficult to get right this way), or due to
disagreements in
This is not a new feature. This is a detail of a feature that was not well
understood for whatever reason.
That is why we are willing to fix it after freeze.
I would ask anyone voting to vote on the basis of the detail and leave
timing to be the problem of release managers. Voting negatively
> On Jul 24, 2021, at 1:33 AM, Tobias Nyholm wrote:
>> If you are not willing to compromise you will probably get nothing.
>>
>> It is relevant because I was trying to get you to ask yourself if you would
>> be happier if you get half of what you want rather than none of what you
>> want.
>>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 07:33 Tobias Nyholm wrote:
>
> >>> Given both of these sets of assertions I would ask the RFC's author
> and proponents what would be a worse outcome?
> >>
> >> I don’t see how this question is relevant. We are not seeking
> compromises at the moment. We are seeking the
I do not think this is strictly true. The issue that this RFC is running
into is that combination types between intersections and unions was
something that was avoided for the intersection types RFC. Not because the
authors never thought of it, but because the RFC would have become very
broad and
