On 30 Jul 2014, at 03:31, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The intdiv RFC is put to the vote, with separate votes for the integer
> division operator (%%) and intdiv function, the latter as a fallback. I would
> highly encourage you to read the discussion in the “[RFC] intdiv()” thread
> and the whole
On 30/07/2014 04:31, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Good evening,
The intdiv RFC is put to the vote, with separate votes for the integer division
operator (%%) and intdiv function, the latter as a fallback. I would highly
encourage you to read the discussion in the “[RFC] intdiv()” thread and the
whole
On 03/08/14 15:31, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Your missing the point I was trying to make. That "(int)(3 / 2)"
>> > essentially goes wrong only on 64bit systems is the bug that needs
>> > fixing.
> (int)(3 / 2) works fine, (int)(PHP_INT_MAX / 3) does not.
>
> It’s not a bug, it’s entirely intentional
On 3 Aug 2014, at 15:27, Lester Caine wrote:
> Your missing the point I was trying to make. That "(int)(3 / 2)"
> essentially goes wrong only on 64bit systems is the bug that needs
> fixing.
(int)(3 / 2) works fine, (int)(PHP_INT_MAX / 3) does not.
It’s not a bug, it’s entirely intentional and
On 03/08/14 13:49, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> That the principle of sorting out 64 bit division is accepted is fairly
>> > obvious from the current stated of the vote? Personally I still view
>> > this as part of the general debate on just how 64bit integers are
>> > supported by default in new builds
On 3 Aug 2014, at 13:51, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Based on the discussion on internals@ I'm not sure why it should not be
> construed as consensus against any kind of operator for intdiv. Quite the
> contrary, those who opposed it (myself included) opposed it on the grounds
> that it's not nearly
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:52 PM
> To: Kris Craig
> Cc: Chris Wright; Adam Harvey; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] intdiv()
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2014, at 05:39, Kris Craig wro
On 3 Aug 2014, at 13:24, Lester Caine wrote:
> That the principle of sorting out 64 bit division is accepted is fairly
> obvious from the current stated of the vote? Personally I still view
> this as part of the general debate on just how 64bit integers are
> supported by default in new builds o
On 03/08/14 12:52, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Agreed. I'd very much like to see another RFC that proposes more options
>> for creating an operator for this. The vote against %% on this RFC should
>> not be construed-- in my opinion, at least-- as a consensus against having
>> any kind of operator
On 3 Aug 2014, at 05:39, Kris Craig wrote:
> Agreed. I'd very much like to see another RFC that proposes more options for
> creating an operator for this. The vote against %% on this RFC should not be
> construed-- in my opinion, at least-- as a consensus against having any kind
> of operat
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> > -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough, the only sensible
> > syntax choice (//) is unavailable to us, and I think the utility of
> > having it baked into the language as an operator is
On 30 July 2014 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough, the only sensible
> syntax choice (//) is unavailable to us, and I think the utility of
> having it baked into the language as an operator is pretty minimal
> regardless (I coded a lot of Python for scien
They don’t necessarily need to be symbols. Pascal, for example, uses ‘/' for
floating-point division, ‘div' for integer division, ‘mod' for modulus, and
‘rem' for remainder. For example:
20 / 8 = 2.5
20 mod 8 = 4
In PHP, we already have precedence for non-symbol in operators like ‘and',
‘or',
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 19:57, Sara Golemon wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > > On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> > >> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
> > >
> > > % returns the 2nd
On 30 July 2014 19:57, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> >> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
> >
> > % returns the 2nd part of the integer division, %% returns the 1st.
> Surely that ma
On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:57, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
>>
>> % returns the 2nd part of the integer division, %% returns the 1st. Surely
>> that
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
>
> % returns the 2nd part of the integer division, %% returns the 1st. Surely
> that makes sense?
>
That makes sense in PHP. Probably only i
On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, Adam Harvey wrote:
> -1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough
% returns the 2nd part of the integer division, %% returns the 1st. Surely that
makes sense?
> I think the utility of
> having it baked into the language as an operator is pretty minimal
> regardle
-1 explanation: I don't think %% is clear enough, the only sensible
syntax choice (//) is unavailable to us, and I think the utility of
having it baked into the language as an operator is pretty minimal
regardless (I coded a lot of Python for scientific research in a
previous job, and I don't think
Good evening,
The intdiv RFC is put to the vote, with separate votes for the integer division
operator (%%) and intdiv function, the latter as a fallback. I would highly
encourage you to read the discussion in the “[RFC] intdiv()” thread and the
whole RFC before voting.
The vote is here: https
20 matches
Mail list logo
