Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85877
Return-Path: <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 52802 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2015 13:43:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 20 Apr 2015 13:43:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de
X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.18 mout.gmx.net  
Received: from [212.227.15.18] ([212.227.15.18:65067] helo=mout.gmx.net)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 88/E2-18373-99205355 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:43:54 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([88.134.68.210]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002)
 with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Md3ZK-1Z2PMS0OKA-00IBIC; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:43:50
 +0200
Message-ID: <55350298.1000303@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:43:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <54E35490.9040709@gmail.com> <5533A275.7050303@gmx.de> <55342724.6020606@gmail.com> <55342C8D.7020509@gmx.de> <55343F3E.3010307@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55343F3E.3010307@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID:  V03:K0:a+YZhZcW0fFYhXWrmIiGnDOH4m22j7s2/ScR6Fm/cC51jRErOgH
 sOSJABIuUhKMaXKah9eOy9drY1JmIl7Y4ZBJuzQgKjX7khtbvIbpMY+ibWjjkudFtVWiT9M
 LKsBV6IpJNPP5M+pe61f1G/gMK2C8ipVQw/qRnZ/tpaNM6sETR2MZMv/eUrjTEY7sZnAGUe
 CVTttZgna+r/EKTTV3XSQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Subject: Re: [RFC] Spaceship operator RFC
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker)

Hi!

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

> Ahh, I see. I think it's the mistake in the RFC. [...]

Then it is probably best to fix the RFC. :)

> I'm not a big fan of throwing too many notices. They are usually not
> very helpful an din this case it would be not easy to distinguish
> between intentional and unintentional use.

<snip>

> $a > $b being false is an artifact of how ">" works in the engine - $a >
> $b is essentially ($b < $a). Since in this case both $a > $b and $b >
> $a, the result of ($b < $a) is false. That's what you get when you
> compare non-well-ordered things...

I get your point.  I suggest to amend the documentation[1] to make it
clear that comparing non-well-ordered values results in undefined
behavior (it might be best to treat the return value 1 in this case as
implementation specific).

[1] <http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.comparison.php>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker