Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75098 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91984 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2014 17:34:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jun 2014 17:34:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.44 mail-wg0-f44.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.44] ([74.125.82.44:45361] helo=mail-wg0-f44.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 68/F6-39155-A995CA35 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:34:18 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x13so4029284wgg.15 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:34:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=46lYJk6GtOXLAagPfPs49xGj+KcKcB4QawV5Mn7B3z0=; b=Rq8jQCXHJUcp75Jc3Y03fBs0f31RJzukU4SNFvfs6rdwomx2KmgoigNtKGAOXp6Xn/ o2U/d5FmCH0xNWksiTAM3m29OVJ9RGcB0ut234OjuvUAIkPYMerx+mz7oV+bO3RIQLrk oQC6VmH+KwFp1iBMTaKmV8DghcXWT0rlPZyNy9G53RkH3IBzvUA8n7xYzgBLwiiZrhvn 51EaSMSx8rD5082uYBdrGyF9ZttC+fLBwYJcEoNZGiRiHkGey1UzWT9YVYIP/gXih7rJ xTw2zEq5igb2gFm8Bu3XHFlyoeEtilto+N5z089H3YADF6Qfv3kyJORWMKXGbk1A6P2Z NwLg== X-Received: by 10.194.2.45 with SMTP id 13mr4737897wjr.127.1403804053547; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.139] ([62.189.198.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fw4sm26668260wib.19.2014.06.26.10.34.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53AC597E.9090904@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:33:50 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP Internals CC: Chris Wright References: <1CA68980-7451-4E28-AD4F-ED120393E131@ajf.me> <7807D11E-BE36-43AF-9E6E-854BE2B0C08D@ajf.me> <53AC0E2B.1070002@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020109030401010003030000" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [DRAFT][RFC] Big Integer Support From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) --------------020109030401010003030000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Wright wrote (on 26/06/2014): >> I'm assuming if bigint keys were available, PHP_INT_MAX would still have the >> same value, but PHP_INT_MAX + 1 would become a valid key, making this work >> transparently. > PHP_INT_MAX would probably need to be renamed (i.e. deprecated and > replaced) because it would become a misnomer - the max*PHP* int is no > longer known because it is limited only by memory. An interesting thought. Is there really much value in renaming it though? It would cause a compatibility break (once the deprecation period expired) for something which could easily be covered by documentation. If done right, the BigInt support would simply make the constant unnecessary in the majority of cases. It's also not entirely clear to me what it could be renamed *to* which was any more appropriate. P.S. You hit "reply" instead of "reply list" or "reply to all", so your message missed the list. -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP] --------------020109030401010003030000--