Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Allow int type argument to BCMath function

On 8-7-2024 5:18, Saki Takamachi wrote:

Hi Juliette,

Hi Saki, Just wondering: why int|string instead of float|string ? In my experience, floats are the more pertinent type for which to use the BCMath extension. Smile, Juliette

Since floating point numbers always contain a certain amount of error, I believe that they are not suitable as arguments for BCMath. Okay, so in that case, I must be missing something.

For example, 0.285 becomes 0.284999... in floating point. From the perspective of arbitrary precision math, there is no universally agreeable way to properly handle values ​​like this: there will always be people who want to treat it as 0.285, and people who want to treat it as 0.284999....

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. If 0.285 is a string, then no type conversion would be needed to pass it to BCMath anyhow. Otherwise, 0.285 would be a floating point number already. If the type for BCMath would become int|string, in non-strict mode, there would be quite a significant change in behaviour for the BCMath functions as passing the _float_ 0.285 would previously result in the string "0.285" being passed to the BCMath function, but would now result in the integer 0 being passed. I think this BC-break will need to be called out as it is not mentioned in the RFC. I also think this BC-break should be enough reason not to accept the RFC. Smile, Juliette