On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2015 at 20:56, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm proposing that we reconsider removing the warning from floating point > > division and here's why. > > Wait ....what? I don't remember an RFC about the behaviour changing. > Did someone ninja commit a change to the language? > > Well it sure looks like it: > > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f9724b93f6592d2f77fa9165038a0ba0db3da0c6 > > This is absolutely a change that needs an RFC. As the change was done > without one, please can it be reverted until an RFC is done? > I actually fully agree to the IEEE 754 compliance part and I doubt anyone will disagree on that part as it only stands to benefit everyone. However, I completely disagree with removing the warning blind-sidedly and especially two days before the beta1 release like that. I do opt that it be reverted, however, until the matter is fully resolved. If that happens to take a day or a month it shouldn't result in releasing ad hoc changes that will be wish-washy between releases like that should something change. At the very least let's cherry pick it out of the beta 1 release to ensure we've fully resolved the matter. > > Bob Weinand wrote: > > I’m just saying that warning in the worst we can have. > > You are wrong; it allows: > > * People who want it to be an exception to convert it to an exception > in their error handler. > * People who want to ignore it can suppress it with the squelch operator. > * People who want to handle it on a case by case basis in their code can > do. > > This is another case where you are ignoring other people's use-cases, > and imagining that your use-case is the only valid use-case. > > But the technical discussion is one that we should have when someone > is proposing this change - not when someone has committed it first and > then is asking for approval. > > > cheers > Dan >
