Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70945 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25430 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2013 18:49:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Dec 2013 18:49:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.193 smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.193] ([67.192.241.193:55765] helo=smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D5/80-21178-DB113C25 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:49:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp9.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AA4663C09DE; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:49:30 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp9.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 3777B3C09B8; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:49:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52C311B9.1080204@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:49:29 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikita Popov , Yasuo Ohgaki CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DRAFT] GMP number as PHP number From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > double and int conversions implemented, it doesn't seem entirely > unreasonable to also allow checking for GMP(0) via !$gmpNum as well. If the > general opinion is that we want this behavior, I can add it. I think making (bool)GMP(0) be false and (bool)GMP(others) true may make sense. Though of course that would require people who check various factory methods by doing != false or such be extra careful to use !== or something like that. But that should be the case even now. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227