On Sun, Jun 30, 2024, at 13:05, Saki Takamachi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> I'm not sure. Does this mean that such "hack" is unavoidable?
>>>
>>> And I don't really understand what "pointless hack" means. This would
>>> make sense if operator overloading was already allowed, but it isn't.
>>
>> Not unavoidable, but pointless. For example, I attempted to create a String class that used
>> + for concatenation. This kinda works, but if you pass it to something that takes a string, you get
>> the underlying number and not the string you were trying to store. This is because GMP takes over
>> casting forcing you to stick to numerical constructs.
>
> I don't understand why you only consider the casting case. You can simply convert it to a
> string via a method. As long as don't use any casting at the end, users can implement it
> however they like. I don't think this is a pointless hack.
>
> Also, allowing "hack" just because they're not useful is not a good idea.
We could just delete php-src, grab a beer, and watch the sunset. I don’t think you’ll ever be
able to stop some programmers from hacking things together to solve business problems though. I’ve
“hacked” weakmaps in userland to make Hour(1) === (yes, there are three! Equals there)
Minute(60).
>
> Again, if such functionality is provided, it should be exposed as formal support for operator
> overloading.
Thank you for your opinion, this RFC doesn’t stop that from happening and is completely
orthogonal.
>
>>> This is very confusing me. Why does this need to be a child class of GMP?
>>
>> This is addressed in the current RFC text, if I missed something, please ask!
>
> I don't understand why the GMP RFC mentions environments where GMP is not used.
>
> There are a few other points worth mentioning, but the existence of polyfills makes this
> especially confusing.
>
> > To be usable, the developer must override the desired operations and make them public
>
> Is this referring to a polyfill? Or is this just a necessary step to override the overload?
I recommend reading up on what a polyfill is, and why they are useful, if you are confused. But to
answer your question, no, it has nothing to do with the polyfill, it’s just a necessary step. The
polyfill is just provided for completeness.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saki
— Rob