Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70062
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.116.29 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP922272B47C6EE6594754DE2F30@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1311071327370.5542@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:02:21 +0100
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <BLU0-SMTP45852120D7AF84084760912E2F30@phx.gbl> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1311071327370.5542@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Constant Scalar Expressions (with constants)
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

Am 7.11.2013 um 14:34 schrieb Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Bob Weinand wrote:
>> Hi!
>>=20
>> As you all know, Anthony Ferrara had withdrawn his RFC a few months =
ago, which was without support for constants in these expressions:
>>=20
>> const foo =3D 10;
>> const bar =3D 10 * foo;
>>=20
>> The use of a constant in a declaration of a constant was not yet =
possible with his patch.
>>=20
>> That's what I changed.
>>=20
>> Enjoy reading the RFC at:
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/const_scalar_exprs
>=20
> =
https://github.com/bwoebi/php-src/compare/const_scalar_exprs#diff-4d0b9309=
4aafe8cf519b4f0a3322f471L590
>=20
> -#define IS_CALLABLE  10
> +#define IS_CONSTANT_AST    10
> +#define IS_CALLABLE  11
>=20
> Can I please suggest that you do not change existing constant values?=20=

> You're using a macro to check for the constant type anyway, so you can=20=

> do the complex checking for constant types in there.

Just comparing twice (> and <) should be faster than comparing three =
times (three times an =3D=3D).

Dmitry had suggested this to me. And I don't see the big disadvantage =
here as IS_CALLABLE is anyway just used for the typehint. Nothing there =
which relies on the fact that IS_CALLABLE equals to 10.

> I'm also of the opinion that just " This can allow for writing far=20
> easier to understand code, by allowing for far more expressive code." =
is=20
> by far not enough of a justification for a syntax addition. Please=20
> please try to be convincing by having good arguments, presenting=20
> alternatives and cons.=20

Well, that's _the_ justification. I can also list other justifications, =
but that'd be just other ways to express the same, so I just kept it =
simple.

Alternatives=85 don't really exist. (at least not in function signatures =
for example)

And cons? Can't think of any problem with it.

Bob

> cheers,
> Derick
>=20
> --=20
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
> Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
> Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine