Re: [RFC] unset(): return bool if the variable has existed

Am 6.3.2013 um 23:30 schrieb Will Fitch <wfitch@meetme.com>: > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > Am 6.3.2013 um 22:50 schrieb Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net>: >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Am 06.03.2013 um 22:39 schrieb "Will Fitch" <willfitch@php.net>: >>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> As this seem to require a RFC, here is it: >>> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/unset_bool >>> >>> I'm not a fan of this change, but if it's going to be discussed, the RFC >>> should include baseline and RFC change benchmarks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please feedback, >>> >>> Bob Weinand >>> >>> -- >>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> I don't see here a real need for a benchmark as it is mostly only returning SUCCESS or >> FAILURE instead of nothing. Nothing what would slow PHP down. >> >> Any change to a language construct which requires additional processing adds time. It may >> be in minute, but it's part of the discussion. Since this core change you're requesting >> comments for introduces a usecase which many will not find useful (probably most voting), it is your >> responsibility to convince this category of people that the tradeoff won't affect them that >> much. >> >> If you choose not to add benchmarking, I will guarantee a -1 from me. >> >> >> Bob Weinand > > > I have tried the following: > > time ./sapi/cli/php -r 'while($i++ < 1e7) { $a = true; unset($a); }' > > Unpatched: average of 5x executed: > real 0m4.935s > user 0m4.925s > sys 0m0.008s > > Patched: average of 5x executed: > real 0m4.945s > user 0m4.938s > sys 0m0.005s > > > Yes, there is an increase of 0.15%. This is 1 nanosecond more than previous. > > Is this exact enough? Or do you need more precision? > > If yes, I'll put this into the RFC. > > Thank you. Please do add to the RFC > > > > Bob Weinand RFC updated. Any other comments about this RFC? Bob Weinand