Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics

On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:19, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 16 September 2014 11:05, Dmitry Stogov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> you already made silent break for N << 64 and N >> 64, but it may be
>> explained as more consistent behaviour.
>> I don't see a big difference with negative shifts.
>> 
>> The real thing that I don't like - is a "boolean" result. Warning is not a
>> big problem.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with this. The warning makes sense as it's
> almost certainly a userland bug, and if the expected old behaviour is
> desired it can easily be modified in userland, but returning FALSE
> doesn't make a huge amount of sense. This will almost certainly be
> immediately cast to int(0) by the next operation - almost no-one is
> going to actually check for a return value of FALSE - so it makes more
> sense to just return 0 and avoid the implicit cast. This would also
> produce possibly-unexpected results if a future operation was to
> stringify the result, as FALSE would cast to the empty string.
> 
> I have voted in favour of the RFC as it stands as I believe that
> overall the changes are positive, but ideally this particular case
> would be addressed.

The choice of bool(false) was due to precedent. This is what we do for a division by zero. I agree that some other value would make more sense, but I couldn’t think of a better one, so I just stuck with the existing behaviour for div0.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/