Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75680
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHMUw2EKKkx04Lj11nyWa-AD6NncPrO2wHp7Ut17-ijwDLQwVg@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>
	<CAHMUw2EKKkx04Lj11nyWa-AD6NncPrO2wHp7Ut17-ijwDLQwVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSyyTUU6yZ38LxdCZ5DGWkJ1OZZmEsqH0YWj0u6u-jCimw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@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=089e012949b6de9dc204fe6fdbed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] intdiv()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e012949b6de9dc204fe6fdbed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> 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 i=
n 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 m=
ean 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 i=
s
>> 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 whe=
n
>> there's no practical downside to it.
>>
>> Given the number of options that are coming up, I'd suggest you break th=
e
>> RFC down into two votes:  A simple yes/no vote followed by an "if yes, h=
ow
>> should it be implemented?" vote with the various options (the operators,
>> functions, etc).  If the RFC passes, then whichever option got a plurali=
ty
>> 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 seconda=
ry
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Tjerk
>

The problem is that, since that suggestion, other variations have been
proposed with no clear favorite.  How should we decide *which* proposed
operator, for example?  There have been several mentioned.

--Kris

--089e012949b6de9dc204fe6fdbed--