Re: Revert unapproved language change, was: Fix division by zero to throw exception (round 2)
| From: | Sherif Ramadan | Date: | Sun, 05 Jul 2015 11:01:14 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Revert unapproved language change, was: Fix division by zero to throw exception (round 2) | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-87027@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2015 at 20:56, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm proposing that we reconsider removing the warning from floating point
> > division and here's why.
>
> Wait ....what? I don't remember an RFC about the behaviour changing.
> Did someone ninja commit a change to the language?
>
> Well it sure looks like it:
>
>
> https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/f9724b93f6592d2f77fa9165038a0ba0db3da0c6
>
> This is absolutely a change that needs an RFC. As the change was done
> without one, please can it be reverted until an RFC is done?
>
I actually fully agree to the IEEE 754 compliance part and I doubt anyone
will disagree on that part as it only stands to benefit everyone. However,
I completely disagree with removing the warning blind-sidedly and
especially two days before the beta1 release like that. I do opt that it be
reverted, however, until the matter is fully resolved. If that happens to
take a day or a month it shouldn't result in releasing ad hoc changes that
will be wish-washy between releases like that should something change. At
the very least let's cherry pick it out of the beta 1 release to ensure
we've fully resolved the matter.
>
> Bob Weinand wrote:
> > I’m just saying that warning in the worst we can have.
>
> You are wrong; it allows:
>
> * People who want it to be an exception to convert it to an exception
> in their error handler.
> * People who want to ignore it can suppress it with the squelch operator.
> * People who want to handle it on a case by case basis in their code can
> do.
>
> This is another case where you are ignoring other people's use-cases,
> and imagining that your use-case is the only valid use-case.
>
> But the technical discussion is one that we should have when someone
> is proposing this change - not when someone has committed it first and
> then is asking for approval.
>
>
> cheers
> Dan
>