Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76321
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: <ec9cd40fb4d917c72a1e14e8d4300f7f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 13:55:38 +0100
Cc: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>,
 Chris Wright <cw@daverandom.com>,
 Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <659E6F33-ADDB-4012-A7BA-E751AE0CF7C8@ajf.me>
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> <ec9cd40fb4d917c72a1e14e8d4300f7f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] intdiv()
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 3 Aug 2014, at 13:51, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> 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).
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.

Right. While I=92d love to hold another vote and get it in, I know it=92s =
not going to happen. Just switching to %/ or something is not going to =
really change the general consensus against the need for %%. At best, it =
might mean one more vote in favour but it=92s hardly going to swing it.

Unless someone presents me a proposal that will somehow get this a 2/3 =
majority and actually pleases everyone, it=92s not going to be reopened.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/