Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122658
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting object types in BCMath
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:37:55 +0900
Message-ID: <09F87F91-6538-48D2-9E34-0296E02CCC1A@sakiot.com>
References: <a1f10f65-2d44-45bf-8692-51398c168bbe@redmagic.org.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <a1f10f65-2d44-45bf-8692-51398c168bbe@redmagic.org.uk>
To: Barney Laurance <barney@redmagic.org.uk>
From: saki@sakiot.com (Saki Takamachi)

Hi Barney,

> I would suggest if you do this only supporting immutable objects, or at le=
ast making immutable the default, the one with with the simpler name, and re=
serving the mutable version specifically for when people want to use mutabil=
ity. The strings used with bcmath today are effectively immutable.
>=20
> It's hard to see why a number should be mutable though. Users of the class=
 can always wrap an immutable up it in a mutable object if they want.
>=20
> If you do have both mutable and immutable it might be worth giving the met=
hods separate names to make the distinction clearer - e.g. "add" for mutable=
, "plus" for immutable, and maybe making the add method return void.

Thanks, that's what I was starting to worry about too. It seems like a good i=
dea to support only immutability, as you say earlier in your proposal.

Regards.

Saki=