On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On 3 Apr 2015, at 20:04, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > 2) Very similar weird behavior was introduced for shift with negative > offsets. I also propose to change it in the same way (Fatal error at > compile-time, Exception in run-time). > > > > Any thoughts? objections? > > For consistency with IEEE 754, shouldn't we produce INF on a division by > zero, at least for floats (but probably integers too because of weak > typing)? I don't think producing a warning is an issue, but FALSE isn't the > right value to produce. >
INF is definitely better than FALSE :) > > However there should be a compile-time solution. Maybe, if a division by > zero happens, don't evaluate the expression at compile-time? > Yes. This should be possible. Keeping WARNING, returning INF and preventing compile-time evaluation is a consistent solution for me. May be you'll also suggest something regarding bitwise shifts with negative offset? Allowing negative offsets using opposite directions would fix inconsistency, but I remember, you didn't like it. May be keep WARNING (Bit shift by negative number) and then perform shift in another direction? + disable negative shifts at compile-time. Thanks. Dmitry. > > Thanks. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/
