# PHP 5.3 == PHP 6? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/36967 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/36967 - Started by Ryan Panning on 2008-04-11T19:30:06+00:00 - Messages: 9 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #36967 — Ryan Panning — 2008-04-11T19:30:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36967 I have been wondering the answer to this question for a while now. A LOT of stuff has been backported from PHP 6 to PHP 5.3. So much in fact, why don't you just call PHP 5.3 version 6? What major new features are left for PHP 6? The big one I can think of is unicode support and dropping some depreciated stuff. Yes, I have looked at the wiki todo list for 6. I'm not trying to start anything here, just want to know why not just call it PHP 6? --- ## #36968 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-04-11T19:34:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36968 · In reply to: #36967 > I have been wondering the answer to this question for a while now. A > LOT of stuff has been backported from PHP 6 to PHP 5.3. So much in > fact, why don't you just call PHP 5.3 version 6? > > What major new features are left for PHP 6? The big one I can think > of is unicode support and dropping some depreciated stuff. Yes, I > have looked at the wiki todo list for 6. Native unicode is not big enough for you? regards, Lukas --- ## #36970 — Ryan Panning — 2008-04-11T19:41:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36970 · In reply to: #36968 Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Native unicode is not big enough for you? > > regards, > Lukas If you're looking for good PR and reviews, no. I think if you have very limited new features, the people writing reviews are going to say PHP 6 doesn't have much new and not worth the upgrade. IMO Honestly, I think PHP 5.3 is worthy of being called PHP 6. There are certainly enough new features. --- ## #36971 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-04-11T19:44:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36971 · In reply to: #36970 > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > […] > > If you're looking for good PR and reviews, no. I think if you have > very limited new features, the people writing reviews are going to > say PHP 6 doesn't have much new and not worth the upgrade. IMO > > Honestly, I think PHP 5.3 is worthy of being called PHP 6. There are > certainly enough new features. Marketing is not our concern, and trust me .. native unicode is enough to warrant a new major version because of the internal changes. regards, Lukas --- ## #36978 — Antony Dovgal — 2008-04-12T00:29:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36978 · In reply to: #36967 > I have been wondering the answer to this question for a while now. A LOT > of stuff has been backported from PHP 6 to PHP 5.3. So much in fact, why > don't you just call PHP 5.3 version 6? > > What major new features are left for PHP 6? The big one I can think of > is unicode support and dropping some depreciated stuff. Yes, I have > looked at the wiki todo list for 6. > > I'm not trying to start anything here, just want to know why not just > call it PHP 6? Because it's just 5.2 + some additions and PHP6 (HEAD) is something entirely different? Did you even try to compare the codebase? -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- ## #36980 — Todd Ruth — 2008-04-12T01:01:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36980 · In reply to: #36978 I'm thinking there must be a bug in the heart of php causing this. I'll debug it, but I haven't looked at php source code in a few years and would like a tip as to which files are involved in evaluating "==". Here is a fragment from my code and the output: ... print "
\n";
var_dump($max);
var_dump($nms);
var_dump($nms == $max);
$max = (float)$max;
$nms = (string)$nms;
var_dump($max);
var_dump($nms);
var_dump($nms == $max);
$max = (string)$max;
$nms = (float)$nms;
var_dump($max);
var_dump($nms);
var_dump($nms == $max);
print "
\n"; ... string(3) "1.8" float(1.8) bool(false) float(1.8) string(3) "1.8" bool(true) string(3) "1.8" float(1.8) bool(true) I found this using php 5.2.3. I just upgraded to php 5.2.5 and am receiving the exact same result. Obviously, I can't reproduce it with a simple var_dump("1.8"==1.8). :( I guess something is getting corrupted, and I will add debug output until I find out what (or Murphy removes the problem by adding debug output; then I'm not sure what I'll do). Thanks for any tips on which files I should look at it. Thanks, Todd --- ## #36981 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2008-04-12T03:29:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36981 · In reply to: #36980 There is no bug here. Please read: http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html -Rasmus Todd Ruth wrote: > I'm thinking there must be a bug in the heart of php > causing this. I'll debug it, but I haven't looked at > php source code in a few years and would like a tip as > to which files are involved in evaluating "==". Here > is a fragment from my code and the output: > > ... > print "
\n";
> var_dump($max);
> var_dump($nms);
> var_dump($nms == $max);
> $max = (float)$max;
> $nms = (string)$nms;
> var_dump($max);
> var_dump($nms);
> var_dump($nms == $max);
> $max = (string)$max;
> $nms = (float)$nms;
> var_dump($max);
> var_dump($nms);
> var_dump($nms == $max);
> print "
\n"; > ... > > string(3) "1.8" > float(1.8) > bool(false) > float(1.8) > string(3) "1.8" > bool(true) > string(3) "1.8" > float(1.8) > bool(true) > > I found this using php 5.2.3. I just upgraded to php 5.2.5 > and am receiving the exact same result. Obviously, I can't > reproduce it with a simple var_dump("1.8"==1.8). :( > I guess something is getting corrupted, and I will add debug > output until I find out what (or Murphy removes the problem > by adding debug output; then I'm not sure what I'll do). > > Thanks for any tips on which files I should look at it. --- ## #36982 — Todd Ruth — 2008-04-12T05:59:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36982 · In reply to: #36981 I'd take that as proof of a design flaw in having php doing string to float comparison by casting the string to float instead of the float to a string, but you've got me - the documentation does say the string will be converted to a float and not vice-versa. If it wouldn't be a bad BC break, I think there'd be a lower WTF by doing the cast the other way. "==" means are they the same and "===" means are they the SAME. With "==", '1.8' should match any float that would be displayed as 1.8. (Of course, with "===" they aren't even the same type, so you're false from the start.) I say "should" from an anti-WTF perspective. Again, I must bow to the spec and you have me there. Thanks for saving me the hours of discovering all this via debugging. Please consider the switching of casts for string==float for the suggestion box. - Todd > There is no bug here. Please read: > > http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html > > -Rasmus > > Todd Ruth wrote: > > […] --- ## #36983 — Todd Ruth — 2008-04-12T06:10:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/36967#36983 · In reply to: #36982 Clicked Send too fast. For the suggestion box, let me instead suggest that for string $s and float $f: $s == $f (a string being compared to a float) be the same as (string)(float)$s === (string)$f instead of (float)$s === $f (as it is today if my understanding is correct) Since the current behavior is effectively undefined in any case in which the two interpretations would give different results, I'd guess that change could probably be made without breaking BC. The only problem would be if someone relied on the change and their code was run on an old version of php. I'll go back to my corner now. Thanks for listening... - Todd > I'd take that as proof of a design flaw in having php > doing string to float comparison by casting the string to > float instead of the float to a string, but you've got > me - the documentation does say the string will be converted > to a float and not vice-versa. If it wouldn't be a bad BC > break, I think there'd be a lower WTF by doing the cast > the other way. "==" means are they the same and "===" > means are they the SAME. With "==", '1.8' should match > any float that would be displayed as 1.8. (Of course, > with "===" they aren't even the same type, so you're > false from the start.) I say "should" from an anti-WTF > perspective. Again, I must bow to the spec and you have > me there. > > Thanks for saving me the hours of discovering all this > via debugging. Please consider the switching of casts > for string==float for the suggestion box. > > - Todd > > > > […]