Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75897
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: <53CEA453.9050700@mabe.berlin>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:04:04 +0100
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B3E6E171-8779-41E2-AD9A-B91C5F031BFE@ajf.me>
References: <53CEA453.9050700@mabe.berlin>
To: Marc Bennewitz <php@mabe.berlin>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] unsinged integer
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:50, Marc Bennewitz <php@mabe.berlin> wrote:

> I like to create an RFC to add an unsinged integer type for the
> following purposes:
>=20
> - higher max value
>  - DBs already allow UNSIGNED INT/BIGINT which is a farce to work with
> in PHP
> - better support pack/unpack unsigned integers from/to PHP using the
> un/pack functions
> - simplified right shift of unsinged integers because PHP "safes" the
> sing bit on singed integers which leads to bugs or overcomplicated =
code
> if you need that bit for others than a sign
> - if a parameter type-hint or similar functionality will be =
implemented
> this type will be very useful, too. Else it will be also useful to =
make
> sure you have no negative integer by simply converting to it.
>=20
> What do you think?
> (Does it worth the expense for a RFC?)

This would be likely to cause endless problems since signed integers are =
used so widely and things would break on conversion, for quite limited =
gain.

I=92m currently proposing and implementing bigints for PHP 6: =
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/bigint

This would solve your problem (any unsigned integer would fit) but would =
cause less issues.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/