Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76320
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender)
References: <739E5BAE-A01D-4936-A016-8CD90CD64BA1@ajf.me> <CADajX4B8v56ZmKPNebP=Ve=oMte_GG4rmxtFZg+ovi7aHg4jdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGAGxbbewtiVZPODR417a6Ye4vgZZ7MdtzvWqme-cny=+XuU9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOpQSyzaR3+A72qj6-AgUKet6Wd-SEQ8OsX=YxFjQXo_XX1BA@mail.gmail.com> <218DB0E9-B785-4E86-A74C-A59B428DB037@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <218DB0E9-B785-4E86-A74C-A59B428DB037@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQKDRnE47McPT5j4FI5Oj3DQozmAsQEOpo66AUk7hXMC+MSO5QDtX/4wmiWzy6A=
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 15:51:54 +0300
Message-ID: <ec9cd40fb4d917c72a1e14e8d4300f7f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <cw@daverandom.com>, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] intdiv()
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:52 PM
> To: Kris Craig
> Cc: Chris Wright; Adam Harvey; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] intdiv()
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2014, at 05:39, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> 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.

Based on the discussion on internals@ I'm not sure why it should not be
construed as consensus against any kind of operator for intdiv.  Quite the
contrary, those who opposed it (myself included) opposed it on the grounds
that it's not nearly commonly used to be worth a dedicated operator.
Quoting one of those who opposed, "IMHO this is not enough for a new
operator... Especially if this means we have to tolerate something like
%/" (note both the operator being different from the one that ended up
being proposed in the RFC, and the key objection being the necessity of
needing this as an operator in the first place).

> To save hassle, could I not modify the current RFC and hold another
vote? I
> don't see why we'd need an entirely new RFC.

I think that the best way to save us all hassle is to accept that there's
overwhelming majority against introducing a dedicated operator for this
use case...
I think a revote should be considered only if you come up with a concrete
alternative, and you get a pretty good reason to believe that the results
will be different (e.g. by asking 5-10 people who voted 'no' on the
current RFC and getting a 'yes' from at least some of them).  We need to
be respectful of people's time - and generally not assume that something
that was voted upon and rejected, will be accepted after minor mods.

My 2c.

Zeev