Re: Re: power operator (again)

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > The changes have been made, the offending commit has been reverted and the PR updated. Travis reported a build failure but afaict not due to these changes. 4) RFC stays that way until next year > 5) Voting opens again. > Waiting for that long seemed a bit overkill, so I've reopened the vote now. Whoever changed or removed their vote because of the construct issue, please review the changes and update their vote where necessary. > > >> Without this piece I think adding ** is a good idea. >> >> -Rasmus >> > > > > -- > -- > Tjerk > -- -- Tjerk