On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > GMP objects are, with the exceptions of gmp_setbit and gmp_clrbit,
> immutable
> > value objects. And yes, that's exactly what I would expect any object
> > representing a number to be.
> Am 07.01.2016 um 20:29 schrieb Sara Golemon :
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>> I think this RFC is attempting to solve the wrong problem... Let me explain
>> why:
>>
>> a) What do you do in cases like:
>> $a = gmp_init(125);
>> $b = $a;
>> $b += 10;
>>
>> $a and $b hold
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > I'd like to provide some context as to why the current implementation
> works
> > as it does.
> >
> Thanks for the context, Niki. It makes sense that, with GMP as the
> flagship target
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> I'd like to provide some context as to why the current implementation works
> as it does.
>
Thanks for the context, Niki. It makes sense that, with GMP as the
flagship target of operator overloading, stripping away the by-ref
semantics of obje
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> This is a separate proposal from the userspace operator overloading I
> put up for Patricio yesterday and aims to fix what I see as a bug in
> our operator overloading implementation (though some may disagree).
>
> It specifically only seeks t
This is a separate proposal from the userspace operator overloading I
put up for Patricio yesterday and aims to fix what I see as a bug in
our operator overloading implementation (though some may disagree).
It specifically only seeks to differentiate const operations which
produce a new value from
