Re: [RFC] Operator Overrides -- Lite Edition

On Sun, Jun 30, 2024, at 13:05, Saki Takamachi wrote: > > Hi, > >>> I'm not sure. Does this mean that such "hack" is unavoidable? >>> >>> And I don't really understand what "pointless hack" means. This would >>> make sense if operator overloading was already allowed, but it isn't. >> >> Not unavoidable, but pointless. For example, I attempted to create a String class that used >> + for concatenation. This kinda works, but if you pass it to something that takes a string, you get >> the underlying number and not the string you were trying to store. This is because GMP takes over >> casting forcing you to stick to numerical constructs. > > I don't understand why you only consider the casting case. You can simply convert it to a > string via a method. As long as don't use any casting at the end, users can implement it > however they like. I don't think this is a pointless hack. > > Also, allowing "hack" just because they're not useful is not a good idea. We could just delete php-src, grab a beer, and watch the sunset. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to stop some programmers from hacking things together to solve business problems though. I’ve “hacked” weakmaps in userland to make Hour(1) === (yes, there are three! Equals there) Minute(60). > > Again, if such functionality is provided, it should be exposed as formal support for operator > overloading. Thank you for your opinion, this RFC doesn’t stop that from happening and is completely orthogonal. > >>> This is very confusing me. Why does this need to be a child class of GMP? >> >> This is addressed in the current RFC text, if I missed something, please ask! > > I don't understand why the GMP RFC mentions environments where GMP is not used. > > There are a few other points worth mentioning, but the existence of polyfills makes this > especially confusing. > > > To be usable, the developer must override the desired operations and make them public > > Is this referring to a polyfill? Or is this just a necessary step to override the overload? I recommend reading up on what a polyfill is, and why they are useful, if you are confused. But to answer your question, no, it has nothing to do with the polyfill, it’s just a necessary step. The polyfill is just provided for completeness. > > Regards, > > Saki — Rob