rfc:typed_properties_v2

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
rfc:typed_properties_v2 [2019/01/04 15:40]
nikic fix typos
rfc:typed_properties_v2 [2019/01/07 14:48]
nikic Add errata: inc/dec overflow
Line 1296: Line 1296:
  
 The reason for this choice is that evaluation of constant expressions at compile-time vs run-time is an optimization choice and should not result in behavioral differences. Whether a constant expression is evaluated during compilation depends on many factors, including code order and whether or not opcache is enabled. We believe that the current behavior of parameters is a bug, not an intentional choice. The reason for this choice is that evaluation of constant expressions at compile-time vs run-time is an optimization choice and should not result in behavioral differences. Whether a constant expression is evaluated during compilation depends on many factors, including code order and whether or not opcache is enabled. We believe that the current behavior of parameters is a bug, not an intentional choice.
 +
 +==== Incrementing/decrementing beyond the maximal/minimal value ====
 +
 +When a value is incremented beyond ''PHP_INT_MAX'' or decremented beyond ''PHP_INT_MIN'' it is converted into a floating-point value and incremented/decremented as a floating-point value. Additionally, under PHPs type verification rules (both strict //and// weak), assigning an out-of-range floating point value to an integer is illegal.
 +
 +As stated, this would result in the following peculiar behavior: Incrementing an ''int'' property past the maximal value, would always be an error, because ''(float)PHP_INT_MAX + 1'' exceeds the integer range. However, decrementing an ''int'' property past the minimal value would only error on 32-bit systems. The reason is that on 64-bit systems ''(float)PHP_INT_MIN - 1'' is the same as ''(float)PHP_INT_MIN'', which is accurately representable as a double-precision floating point number and as such can be assigned back to an ''int'' property without error.
 +
 +As such, we would always generate an error on increment/decrement overflow, apart from the case of decrements on 64-bit systems.
 +
 +To avoid this, we instead define that incrementing/decrementing an ''int'' property past the maximal/minimal value always generated an error. It should be noted that this only affects the ''++'' and ''--'' operators. Overflows caused by other means are not handled specially.
  
 ===== Changelog ===== ===== Changelog =====
Line 1301: Line 1311:
 Significant changes to the RFC are noted here. Significant changes to the RFC are noted here.
  
 +  * 2019-01-07: Add errata: Increment/decrement overflow behavior.
   * 2019-01-03: Add errata: Strictness of runtime-evaluated default values.   * 2019-01-03: Add errata: Strictness of runtime-evaluated default values.
   * 2019-01-03: Add errata: Automatic promotion of arrays and objects.   * 2019-01-03: Add errata: Automatic promotion of arrays and objects.
rfc/typed_properties_v2.txt · Last modified: 2019/01/11 16:16 by nikic