Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76317 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47867 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2014 11:51:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2014 11:51:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.216 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.216 imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.216] ([192.64.116.216:38165] helo=imap10-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 46/81-25844-3522ED35 for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 07:51:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1112B240279; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:52:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap10.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap10.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7lEwEEPRyNQ1; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.15] (unknown [90.210.122.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EBE724022B; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 12:52:03 +0100 Cc: Chris Wright , Adam Harvey , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <218DB0E9-B785-4E86-A74C-A59B428DB037@ajf.me> References: <739E5BAE-A01D-4936-A016-8CD90CD64BA1@ajf.me> To: Kris Craig X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] intdiv() From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 3 Aug 2014, at 05:39, Kris Craig wrote: > Agreed. I'd very much like to see another RFC that proposes more = options for creating an operator for this. The vote against %% on this = RFC should not be construed-- in my opinion, at least-- as a consensus = against having any kind of operator for intdiv. To save hassle, could I not modify the current RFC and hold another = vote? I don=92t see why we=92d need an entirely new RFC. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/