Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83137 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82153 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2015 00:53:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Feb 2015 00:53:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:53909] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 99/C0-08593-B0435E45 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:53:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 22236 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2015 00:53:28 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 22228, pid: 22232, t: 0.0655s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@86.189.147.37) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 19 Feb 2015 00:53:28 -0000 Message-ID: <54E53408.90005@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:53:28 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <54E51B9E.1060201@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <54E51B9E.1060201@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC-Discuss] Scalar Type Declarations v0.5 From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 18/02/15 23:09, Christoph Becker wrote: > It seems to me that this behavior is hard to deal with generally for > programmers as well as static analyzers. Andreas' bigint RFC[1] would > solve that issue, but it has been withdrawn, and AFAIK nobody is working > on it. OTOH, bigint would make the widening from int to float > potentially even more lossy (i.e. inaccurate) than it is now (64bit ints > vs. IEEE 754 doubles). The 'unconstrained integer' RFC adds it' own problems, but the int -> float overflow is only a problem with 32bit builds anyway. 64bit builds will not overflow until they run out of space anyway. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk