Re: Re: power operator (again)

Hi Rasmus, On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: > Tjerk, I hadn't noticed this part of your patch before. > > > > https://github.com/datibbaw/php-src/commit/f60b98cf7a8371233d800a6faa286ddba4432d02 > > I don't think this is necessary and it looks odd having pow as a > language construct. There is nothing wrong with having pow() as a > regular legacy function here. > When Pierre suggested it I admittedly had not thought it through enough what the possible issues could be and to paraphrase Phil Sturgeon, doing this would break "public function pow() { }" and that's not acceptable. This obviously means that the voting has to be broken off ... like, again. I'm so sorry about this; it seems that the truly good observations only come during voting phase ... The following will be done: 1) Voting gets closed 2) Status goes back to Discussion 3) Code changes will be made and will be documented in the RFC 4) RFC stays that way until next year 5) Voting opens again. > Without this piece I think adding ** is a good idea. > > -Rasmus > -- -- Tjerk