Re: Supporting object types in BCMath

Hi Jordan, > I've done a lot of performance tuning on my arbitrary precision library, and will simply > state for everyone here that I think the amount of development effort involved in improving > performance of the BCMath library is almost certainly going to see a return on your effort that is > not worth it. There have been discussions over the last year on possibly working on bundling a new > arbitrary precision C library and providing something that is performant enough to be generally > useful in core, but that's not even at the RFC stage, just investigations. > > I wouldn't say that improving BCMath is a waste of time, but there is also probably lower > hanging fruit once you get past things like Saki has here. DevEx improvements. BCMath is slow, but currently no other extension can replace it in terms of computational accuracy. Therefore, I would like to advance these proposals with the aim of improving usability rather than improving performance. Since we have already completed the implementation of the important processes when creating the prototype, we will start preparing the RFC. Regards. Saki