Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96405 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63085 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2016 06:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Oct 2016 06:23:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@golemon.com; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@golemon.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@golemon.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.171 mail-io0-f171.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.171] ([209.85.223.171:35719] helo=mail-io0-f171.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8D/72-40890-EDFB5085 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:23:27 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f171.google.com with SMTP id f5so28982156ioj.2 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:23:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=golemon-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=V/FQL62RwdAbavLHiXowU9a+zOzfFoQrRynkekcix/M=; b=JUTDi5gOwuoqxQBz4zeVrp/14aNlKKnk0/E9hRy3IrUhQdGTH+UdUiOpfEzpr+3b+0 H5MmC4AqjMCLlUJPGEYmapaL/ZzsJSm5WUA8ysxOk2nAJKRCxgWG8MDIH85HUoSmx/2I barH/9L+WnRriYLt7ljF2k0lQYYrPzvujRKkKOMjwJTVmuZQDll5f08S6r7zFE3Ph5l3 oYphGaHT0GR4TLv3Cx9LDiiQVIFfnPATX1MHt0BF9c+AzA1jan32ZzKaJLZekKxuUsco dSV+5sdq72siDq1ToyaCWuB7PBKKOz31/oa35R5ckajqcL1rrTdsva8bt3gUa+jlakVD DDdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=V/FQL62RwdAbavLHiXowU9a+zOzfFoQrRynkekcix/M=; b=iPt0mYESOVds3Hy3ugJCIQzuH6gFKYospAomo3r61NJgXthwnCgBszBIs4FbruJo1e 4zJTQ778wGjPCU0z5ST5MB9VwX1wv4x3Mgcj6affHHyGBXzIoaccSmy/QPouA2HNfWqB 7OnO6T7n/pkMPltFLFAX/x0A/SdyheAjiEdjQSssfCKxzs5z5rcZNVPhktOSx+QdMMwf IA3BslcRnHr3Uj8AeL9KDxxtyO05XerD6I7FQsqsrzAj7SbVWmg0eiVGPN6u+QSrl2lR taSHUaLELW+ABmhTIvaAMGoZjQHrw2DX1BfVjULpA+FgMMfbCeAEiBTJLOh/mtS7y0cy j+Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlIrYwD8ERhuc4aniiJKvbl3x4fwnnui2bdGiLFiZfGD4FkyxesaegDx29VLB1jaHCbJmAQzCnA0yEsrQ== X-Received: by 10.107.33.70 with SMTP id h67mr27084321ioh.18.1476771803327; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:23:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: php@golemon.com Received: by 10.36.11.2 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:23:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [107.198.91.68] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:23:22 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8twoFJBkcuZfois9eF-poKHdJkI Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] OpenSSL BigNum support From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) > Looks ok to me. Would probably not hurt also add tests for various error > conditions. > There's one TypeError test in there, but I can easily add more. (And probably will on my flight tomorrow.) > I realise this is only exposing functionality already available with > OpenSSL but is it worth adding tests that cover some arbitrary precision > arithmetic? The tests at the moment cover integers that PHP already > handles natively without requiring either GMP or BCMath. > This type of test is certainly worth including. I'll add some it these as well. I'm mostly curious about thoughts on API decisions. For example: Do we want this in a namespace? Would we rather match GMP's function based API for consistency? I like the decisions I made, but I can imagine disagreement. -Sara