Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75630
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BE25BA95-5BE4-43B0-83C6-D2B0DD8E7EE1@ajf.me>
References: <7646A8D1-69A2-4255-B048-D3B9F28B422F@ajf.me>
	<53C47CA2.4050306@sugarcrm.com>
	<714C2E5E-A321-4993-9CFB-F7DFAC45C532@ajf.me>
	<53C4B955.5060401@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAKOpQSywFb+dDdpxs-udz+SUAQ34db814MhntfUQBpoOLd93Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE25BA95-5BE4-43B0-83C6-D2B0DD8E7EE1@ajf.me>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:02:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzus17wvJrAW3b9u_tATBB_G2Upx8+3aQgz3bcr61_xTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4720789e1aea04fe5ade43
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] intdiv()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--047d7b4720789e1aea04fe5ade43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 15 Jul 2014, at 06:50, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While a practical argument can certainly be made that existing solution=
s
> can fit the examples OP cited, I don't think that takes away from the
> underlying principle of the argument:  That there's no reason *not* to
> include a basic integer division in PHP.  It's never made sense to me why
> it wasn't included.  Rather than an intdiv() function, though, I wonder i=
f
> an operator would be a better approach.  Some languages I've seen that us=
e
> / as the division operator will use a \ as the integer division operator.
>
> We use \ for namespaces, and Python 3=E2=80=99s // obviously can=E2=80=99=
t be used, so I
> might suggest Pascal=E2=80=99s div operator:
>

Oh, derp.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> As another contender, how about:
>
> $x =3D 242 %/ 7;
> $x %/=3D 13;
>

I like this idea!  I haven't seen anyone else respond to it yet, though.
 My only question would be whether %/ or /% would be more appropriate.

Perhaps the RFC could have two options for approval; one with %% and the
other with either %/ or /%.  Thoughts?

--Kris

--047d7b4720789e1aea04fe5ade43--