Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123033
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal: Arbitrary precision native scalar type
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:12:31 +0900
Message-ID: <50CFC57D-5F50-46B4-92E5-05024BBEEFD0@sakiot.com>
References: <1DF4290C-EE0F-49A4-B09F-56DB18327F3A@rwec.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1DF4290C-EE0F-49A4-B09F-56DB18327F3A@rwec.co.uk>
To: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>
From: saki@sakiot.com (Saki Takamachi)

Hi Rowan,

> Again, that only seems related to objects because that's what you're used t=
o in PHP, and even then you're overlooking an obvious exception: array(1, 2)=



Arrays are a bad example here because their contents are themselves values. =
For example, it would make sense as an example if the third value in the arr=
ay was a flag that controlled the mode in which array_merge operates, but in=
 reality it is not.


> If we ever do want to make decimals a native type, we would need some way t=
o initialise a decimal value, since 1.2 will initialise a float. One of the m=
ost obvious options is a function-like syntax, decimal(1.2). If we do want n=
umbers to carry extra information in each value, it will be no problem at al=
l to support that.

I don't see any point in "scalar types" that feel almost like objects, becau=
se it just feels like you're manipulating objects with procedural functions.=
 Why not just use objects instead?


> On the other side, just because something's easy doesn't mean it's the rig=
ht solution. We could make an object which contained a number and an operati=
on, and write this:
>=20
> $a =3D new NumberOp(42, 'add');
> $b =3D $a->exec(15);
> $c =3D $b->withOperation('mul');
> $d =3D $c->exec(2);
>=20
> I'm sure you'd agree that would be a bad design.

Yeah, I agree that this is a terrible example. But it's easy to come up with=
 terrible examples like this. Shouldn't you use the original decimal class a=
s an example for comparison?


> So, again, I urge you to forget about it being easy to stick an extra prop=
erty on an object, and think in the abstract: does it make sense to say "thi=
s number has a preferred rounding mode", rather than "this operation has a p=
referred rounding mode".

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "numbers have rounding modes". Nu=
mbers are just numbers, and if there's something other than numbers in there=
, then to me it's an object.

As you can see from the discussion so far, my idea of =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8Bwhat=
 a native type is and your idea of =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8Bwhat a native type is a=
re probably different.

At least between the two of us, we may need to first have a discussion about=
 what the native type should be.

Regards.

Saki