Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75646
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <d373a9bdc62a05dcbe2f911c2f83e2cc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:44:07 +0100
Cc: bishop@php.net,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9F08728B-AF74-4098-8D1D-BC21AB821168@ajf.me>
References: <7646A8D1-69A2-4255-B048-D3B9F28B422F@ajf.me> <CAEYWF=4pxA5vE0eBEbi1Fkh7k7uqZk0rAS77oWxzPdicnTN+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <A8E995FC-7F3A-451F-8787-6566CCAE39B5@ajf.me> <CAEYWF=7YReKc9iKOnFHSWHmYKw1a5y2BU_=Hc5HBbMqdkPTMRg@mail.gmail.com> <37F89E54-C5B9-4E81-9D1B-660190BDB1FF@ajf.me> <d373a9bdc62a05dcbe2f911c2f83e2cc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] intdiv()
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 17 Jul 2014, at 07:29, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> =46rom debating whether it's worth it to add a new function for an
> not-so-commonly-used-operation-to-say-the-least, we're now seriously
> considering adding a new language level operator?  Really?

Is it *really* not that common? I can think of several use-cases off the =
top of my head:

* Time (actually pretty common in web apps, though we have a DateTime =
class)
* Splitting into rows and columns
* Pagination
* Currency (you can=92t, for example, represent the full number of BTC =
in circulation in BTC's base unit without using an integer of beyond =
53-bits, and it=92s common practise to use *fixed-point* arithmetic =
here)
* Nearest-neighbour scaling
* Most likely other ones (these are just what I thought of immediately)

Also, while ** is great for some applications, it=92s not going to be =
used much by others. Is the same not true of an integer division =
operator?


On 17 Jul 2014, at 07:31, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> I can't believe we're seriously considering adding an operator for =
something
> so uncommon.
>=20
> I'm actually in favor of adding APIs, but absolutely not an obscure
> operator.  We're not Perl.

Nor are we Python, but it is worth looking at just how many other =
languages support this considering it=92s actually very useful in some =
situations. I can think of C, C++, C#, Java, Objective-C, Visual Basic, =
Pascal, Python and Ruby to name a few popular ones. If you say that some =
of these implement it just because C does, I=92m not sure that=92s fair, =
as there are plenty of bad ideas in C which these don=92t implement.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/