Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70757
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F90020F3-373E-4AE5-A345-BB2256F4909A@seancoates.com>
References: <CAHMUw2F3iSFE++etPTfX=WSg3rZJ21zb9QAuRC1hCWaB+4OQEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2EQ5Gk2TXz1ihjfxHp25koQfmdmyw0zFnGLg4XX7_L9Hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSwZ_8LDh8Cp3=RL1PCM92w6JKq5EOcDLEosz55BYoUcuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2F0f0aNT-AzLTOXuwsLFQ2WPGnv_hJXm8U9FGVZO=Y8gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4No7hH6NOJ95H33hyZpBaOBwdUX0efdf9e+0vRSQTrnhrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52B3362C.80108@ajf.me>
	<F90020F3-373E-4AE5-A345-BB2256F4909A@seancoates.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:09:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHMUw2EAWP+q6PoD-9R8BF9CvWHNYM+8q2UTofX=r9nkrL98oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Coates <sean@seancoates.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111ae34129d6004ede7e8f1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [vote] pow-operator
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

--089e0111ae34129d6004ede7e8f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Sean,


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Sean Coates <sean@seancoates.com> wrote:

> Sorry I'm late (possibly too late?) to this, but:
>
> 1) if `pow()` is turning from a function into a construct, can it still be
> used for callbacks? I don't see a mention of that part in the RFC.
>

It's implied in this section:

No changes to existing code, safe for one:

var_dump(pow([], 2)); // int(0) instead of float(0)


Perhaps it could be made more obvious, but yes, the original function
remains there to serve exactly the purpose of callbacks; its innards have
been replaced by calling the PHP_SAPI pow_function(), though.


> 2) if `pow()` drops the overhead of a function call, does `-3 ** 2` really
> gain us anything over `pow(-3, 2)`? The latter is /far/ less ambiguous IMO.
>

Yes, it allows you to write an expression more naturally; regarding the
second part of your question, `(-3) ** 2` is also far less ambiguous :)


> S
>
>


-- 
--
Tjerk

--089e0111ae34129d6004ede7e8f1--