Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98822 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26031 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2017 16:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Apr 2017 16:09:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=adam.baratz@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=adambaratz@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: adam.baratz@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.182 mail-qt0-f182.google.com Received: from [209.85.216.182] ([209.85.216.182:32999] helo=mail-qt0-f182.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FD/61-61625-C9B87F85 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:09:02 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f182.google.com with SMTP id m36so23034245qtb.0 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tyPBnWKVRPm8UtrPr3By8TojnH14XKH/acBXAQR7DbI=; b=Ka9rPvTNYk7AuKpGhlRSOmfQnHJsLaIT+d0p/9o1a9HlupCn89Xkiffakeq+hfB2w2 iTh08yGgZ4Ig5ImDaJ+j6abXslyjD9GKwdsgnxRTD4mIxVV0n8tZOEnsW/Zp2jxOEWkL kcfOhb5aaXdazsgXj69HK//pPxwTjdLFnM8Rv1bakHmCm0MzLvrXS5VruZjaKgCzuP/i 5nH9fE0uYX2TC4diKCggDwpIE5TO9JeLb6RgRbrW8nFk10WDjMTqCtMT8sKlCLaiiwWI VYeMR0jbLbUQ0mSBTf130BfTQm+S5e3f+QxGp2IjBw9KhxAAE6Qf95NSimhAo4/R/S60 pJUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6AhdQaHogVr5EkDwCD+RwtzeHhi3oHE0wdZ8QSXNsUVZARDSIT wg9sfgBYXhWG6CnZ0bM= X-Received: by 10.237.41.101 with SMTP id s92mr3256855qtd.175.1492618137478; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com. [209.85.216.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h6sm2148912qkd.56.2017.04.19.09.08.56 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y33so22996759qta.2 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:08:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.200.48.45 with SMTP id f42mr3332500qte.206.1492618135788; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.135.212 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5e3e3e9b-f5b9-a19e-c4cb-6af0f5985d94@beccati.com> <8923084a-a357-91e9-44b5-52a4af0a5df1@beccati.com> <86e4681f-9030-80fc-896b-56255c4b84c7@beccati.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:08:55 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Matteo Beccati Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" , Andrea Faulds Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11379070c4e1be054d873db2 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PDO Float Type From: adambaratz@php.net (Adam Baratz) --001a11379070c4e1be054d873db2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Thanks for allowing everyone the time to look at the RFC changes before > opening the vote ;) > I didn't think I needed to extend discussion for the changes I made. The substance of the proposal hasn't changed. I just responded to your criticism that there'd need to be a separate type for fixed-precision values. Anyway, your suggestion that a single floating point type is appropriate > for both fixed-precision and floating points seems ill-advised, as is > probably the API you are basing your decisions off of. I am trying to be as thorough as possible in addressing your concerns. That's why, after your last response, I delayed the vote and took the time to work out how each API differentiates between floating point and fixed-precision values. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to force this through. I'm just trying to avoid spinning tires when it seems like we're likely to "agree to disagree." That said, I'm not sure how to respond to you when your feedback is very brief. Simply calling something "ill-advised" doesn't give me a lot to go on, especially when I feel like I provided a pretty rich level of detail in the RFC. I'd like to get a better handle on how we should discuss RFCs. We seem to hit impasses pretty frequently. If you have any specifics on what's helpful for you, I'm happy to adjust my style. Thanks, Adam --001a11379070c4e1be054d873db2--