Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87027
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuRg1PvRAVnxZsZd2uFeTHfBoWzKvOqFMqFfGq2SVZUkJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuRg1PvRAVnxZsZd2uFeTHfBoWzKvOqFMqFfGq2SVZUkJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:01:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL+t6cGgE-5hT-bs7gN-cJ4Eoood7keK7FHDwHaE_=J_3RC+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SmFrdWIgS3Viw63EjWVr?= <kelerest123@gmail.com>, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@icicle.io>, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c78a2ed325051a1eb565
Subject: Re: Revert unapproved language change, was: Fix division by zero to
 throw exception (round 2)
From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan)

--089e0158c78a2ed325051a1eb565
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On 4 July 2015 at 20:56, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm proposing that we reconsider removing the warning from floating poi=
nt
> > division and here's why.
>
> Wait ....what? I don't remember an RFC about the behaviour changing.
> Did someone ninja commit a change to the language?
>
> Well it sure looks like it:
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f9724b93f6592d2f77fa9165038a0ba0db3=
da0c6
>
> This is absolutely a change that needs an RFC. As the change was done
> without one, please can it be reverted until an RFC is done?
>

I actually fully agree to the IEEE 754 compliance part and I doubt anyone
will disagree on that part as it only stands to benefit everyone. However,
I completely disagree with removing the warning blind-sidedly and
especially two days before the beta1 release like that. I do opt that it be
reverted, however, until the matter is fully resolved. If that happens to
take a day or a month it shouldn't result in releasing ad hoc changes that
will be wish-washy between releases like that should something change. At
the very least let's cherry pick it out of the beta 1 release to ensure
we've fully resolved the matter.


>
> Bob Weinand wrote:
> > I=E2=80=99m just saying that warning in the worst we can have.
>
> You are wrong; it allows:
>
> * People who want it to be an exception to convert it to an exception
> in their error handler.
> * People who want to ignore it can suppress it with the squelch operator.
> * People who want to handle it on a case by case basis in their code can
> do.
>
> This is another case where you are ignoring other people's use-cases,
> and imagining that your use-case is the only valid use-case.
>
> But the technical discussion is one that we should have when someone
> is proposing this change - not when someone has committed it first and
> then is asking for approval.
>




>
> cheers
> Dan
>

--089e0158c78a2ed325051a1eb565--