Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72218
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52F15B62.1070006@gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXYHP5D70bDBhbWzE7-B0s2kgk7DmAZdFhXkLqMJQqKV5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52EF4BF8.60005@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAGa2bXacCxnmcAPZjh-YgTNocMjEpu_Uoc4npfNcKVM2WA2Tow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXZt7n8aqA=VrBKsqBzFiusGZP7aECPO-7xQher4+uVLWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F14C66.3030806@gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH4+ULN2bVh=A2ZNvXmpYDqBPA3JrhhdrKb5zVH_sXucxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F15B62.1070006@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:43:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH4qXWJF_qN2ap0u+ufOMTah3VTR9t-BrV+9qkqD-KdixQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1266293217c04f19b8864
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Declare minimum PHP version required?
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a11c1266293217c04f19b8864
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>wro=
te:

> On 04/02/2014 21:04, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> with the current assert implementation the assert is a function, which
>> eval()-s the expression argument, but it will return early if asserts ar=
e
>> disabled(http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_5_5/ext/standard/assert.c#149)
>> with the proposed assert (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations) the
>> assert will be changed into a language construct, which has the advantag=
e
>> that we can use expressions instead of passing a string for evaluation
>> without additional cost, also executing that is cheaper than a function
>> call, and when the assertions are disabled they will be almost zero-cost=
.
>>
>>
> Thanks for that. As posted elsewhere, I think the RFC could make that
> clearer.
>
> So the relevance to this discussion is that you could already do a versio=
n
> check with an assert(), and the proposed version of assert() would be as
> efficient as the proposed declare(); does that sound right?
>
>
I would wait for Yasuo to answer, but that my understanding, yes.



--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a11c1266293217c04f19b8864--