Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75679
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSz=Ux2JbMeyx1eYObMDahRvF5nNo8_Y+-t0DxVvp64AjQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CAESVnVreaYMCe8hiKYzwqD=PfOQvr81ZbBmoj5EEi0_ZoMSGKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_eVsRv+TDM6HYNH0vVDCXChLsoBK4a8KQp8BZtbRipEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<F6F9BF59-BAAB-450D-A1C1-C29FFADD670B@ajf.me>
	<CAKOpQSz=Ux2JbMeyx1eYObMDahRvF5nNo8_Y+-t0DxVvp64AjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:39:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHMUw2EKKkx04Lj11nyWa-AD6NncPrO2wHp7Ut17-ijwDLQwVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, bishop@php.net, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307ca2c22d742d04fe6f8075
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] intdiv()
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

--20cf307ca2c22d742d04fe6f8075
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:24, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is already what is currently happening, see
> > > http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_TRUNK/Zend/zend_operators.c#1067.
> > >
> > > Andreas proposal is only useful in the case that the numbers don't
> divide
> > > exactly and you need round-down/truncation behavior and your numbers
> are
> > in
> > > a range where the indirection through double arithmetic results in
> > > precision loss.
> >
> > It=E2=80=99s still useful regardless as it saves you implementing it in=
 terms of
> > floats.
> >
> > I mean, you can implement a right shift (rarely used outside bit masks)
> in
> > terms of multiplication and exponentiation, but that doesn=E2=80=99t me=
an you
> > shouldn=E2=80=99t have a right shift.
> >
> > --
> > Andrea Faulds
> > http://ajf.me/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
> There seems to be a pretty even split on this.  Personally, I'm a +1 for
> it.  PHP has tons of obscure, rarely used functions.  Even if the gain is
> relatively minor, there's really no cost that I can think of.  So from a
> cost-benefit standpoint, even a minor improvement is still desirable when
> there's no practical downside to it.
>
> Given the number of options that are coming up, I'd suggest you break the
> RFC down into two votes:  A simple yes/no vote followed by an "if yes, ho=
w
> should it be implemented?" vote with the various options (the operators,
> functions, etc).  If the RFC passes, then whichever option got a pluralit=
y
> of the votes would be the implemented option.
>

This makes it more complicated because a language change requires 2/3
majority while a new function requires 50% + 1.

To make things simpler - and I believe it had been proposed before - the
main vote should include the implementation as a function and the secondary
vote should be for the operator.


>
> So yeah, I'd say bring it to a vote and that'll settle it one way or
> another.
>
> --Kris
>



--=20
--
Tjerk

--20cf307ca2c22d742d04fe6f8075--