Union for variadic types

[azjezz]

Union for variadic types

[nzour]

Are you up for a PR?

I'm on it

[nzour]

You right, first, second and rest sounds more logic, I see it now

[azjezz]

Hm, i think we can allowing extra arguments to Type\union and Type\intersection ( i prefer if these two provide the same API ).

This will also prevent a BC break, in v2.0 we can drop $right and $left and make both union and intersection accept variadic arguments.

[nzour]

🤔 Hmm, I kept in my that UnionType has left and right branches, therefore function union() takes two arguments to be honest with users.

I was thinking about suggestion to define extra function to prevent boilerplate when we need define union type with a lot of cases.
But, If you think it is alright to expand already existed function - it is fair enough for me

[azjezz]

we can have function union(TypeInterface $right, TypeInterface $left, TypeInterface ...$other), UnionType is an internal class, there's no reason to design the public API to match it.

[nzour]

Looks great for me.

[azjezz]

Are you up for a PR?

[nzour]

By the way, why you want to make union and intersection completely variadic (in v2.0)?
union(string()) - doesn't make sense for me

[azjezz]

union(string()) - doesn't make sense for me

it doesn't to me too, but that's solvable via Psl\invariant(Iter\count($types) >= 2, 'at least 2 types are required to create a union.');

[nzour]

union(string()) - doesn't make sense for me

it doesn't to me too, but that's solvable via Psl\invariant(Iter\count($types) >= 2, 'at least 2 types are required to create a union.');

Do you prefer runtime exception instead of statically analysed issue?

[azjezz]

the reason is i don't like $right, $left, $others, maybe we could just rename them to something more appropriate...

WDYT about $first, $second, ...$rest? ( renaming arguments is not BC break, we can do it now )