Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78240
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.244 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <54480580.9040302@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:32:41 +0100
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4F848DB0-0266-46A0-9805-2B2BF22CAC33@ajf.me>
References: <66B7B28C-2651-4A71-AC2A-55D4C7BB3DDC@ajf.me> <CA+9eiLs9j0XMbtNKSSuqTBhF-BEc1CU__3E4gOhYwuF5zF4_1g@mail.gmail.com> <866A39C7-6F11-408D-8BCA-594BA22E8569@ajf.me> <CA+9eiLutEFyZsJGu9Qk9C7Jd0P48SBXcdRiVyySbqXbEYm3Y3w@mail.gmail.com> <5447682B.2080100@sugarcrm.com> <019325A5-4F82-4179-B4D7-29E5649B2616@ajf.me> <54480580.9040302@sugarcrm.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Safe Casting Functions
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


> On 22 Oct 2014, at 20:29, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> No, it wouldn=E2=80=99t require a 2/3 majority. The optimisation me =
and
>> Dmitry are referring to is merely an optimisation, it=E2=80=99s an
>> implementation detail. This doesn=E2=80=99t touch any of the language =
spec or
>> the language as understood by users.
>=20
> Sorry, it's not "merely an optimization", it's making it an engine
> primitive, like (int) or empty() are.

Yes, that=E2=80=99s still merely an implementation detail. If HHVM =
decides to make explode() into an opcode, it=E2=80=99s not a language =
change. It is not any different if PHP does the same.

>> Or would you argue that the fact is_long is now an opcode is a
>> language change, and Dmitry should=E2=80=99ve made an RFC before =
making a
>> change that is completely non-user-facing?!
>=20
> is_long existed long before that, and nothing changed for it.

So why is it a language change?

> You propose to add completely new type conversion rules into the =
engine, in
> addition to ones already present and used there. It's not the same as
> merely changing how the engine internally runs pre-existing code. The
> new rules are definitely becoming major part of the language, not an
> implementation detail of some random function like str_pad.

No, they=E2=80=99re just a set of new validation functions.

> Saying "oh, we just add it like a random function and _only then_ =
we'll
> make it an opcode and it will be implementation detail" sounds a lot
> like gaming the system to me.

=E2=80=A6what?
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/