Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70795
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52B4C3AB.9010909@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAH8MpnnchvJKkihBfa4AZBi_+rDWNTPTOg_YjqokADWD4Dyh_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyWP+_uAJ0iq5rH4oDuDa6AEm2Tp11_+FKJ3c7oDWkzfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2GXE7sM5AyLX8xFHu+mQPX6M_dQ2XN=a-0bTZr4TX0NTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxsq9ZoR=B-MLGR_VbJNUcfw4E6aLnE2119nE1papgwMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHMUw2FuC5GaErpqa1BLHgP_d_fdSvLhFJWH68TyQU0wFrjBRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52B4C3AB.9010909@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:35:37 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHMUw2EkkazZ9NuzP+dC-2quGK+UkcxHEdQPYq2t0Uf+udGV4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ae76da375704ee00924f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: power operator (again)
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

--001a11c2ae76da375704ee00924f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Rasmus,


On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:

> Tjerk, I hadn't noticed this part of your patch before.
>
>
> https://github.com/datibbaw/php-src/commit/f60b98cf7a8371233d800a6faa286ddba4432d02
>
> I don't think this is necessary and it looks odd having pow as a
> language construct. There is nothing wrong with having pow() as a
> regular legacy function here.
>

When Pierre suggested it I admittedly had not thought it through enough
what the possible issues could be and to paraphrase Phil Sturgeon, doing
this would break "public function pow() { }" and that's not acceptable.

This obviously means that the voting has to be broken off ... like, again.

I'm so sorry about this; it seems that the truly good observations only
come during voting phase ...

The following will be done:
1) Voting gets closed
2) Status goes back to Discussion
3) Code changes will be made and will be documented in the RFC
4) RFC stays that way until next year
5) Voting opens again.


> Without this piece I think adding ** is a good idea.
>
> -Rasmus
>



-- 
--
Tjerk

--001a11c2ae76da375704ee00924f--