Hi Michael, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Wallner" Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006
> Matt W wrote: > > > That's why I'm assuming negative numbers aren't "really" supported > > now (not in any form with base_convert()), but it's simply a side > > effect of wanting to handle *positive* numbers between LONG_MAX and > > ULONG_MAX. e.g. when doing dechex(4294967173) that's a PHP double, > > but it gets converted to long (becomes -123), and finally unsigned > > long (recovering 4294967173). IOW, after convert_to_long() in dec*() > > it doesn't know if -123 or 4294967173 was passed. Make sense? > > (Actually, it doesn't, that's my point. :-)) > > For your computer 0xffffff85 is -123 and 4294967173. It's just how > you look on it. Oh, I know. But that still doesn't answer the question of how to handle negative *double's*. > > So after more thinking, I figure when upgrading dec*() to handle any > > number, absolute value should be used (then int(123) would be > > returned in my example). Unless the all the functions are changed to > > properly accept/return negatives... I personally don't care either > > way on that. > > No way. Why should hexdec(dechex(-123)) return +123? Because it makes more sense to users than 4294967173? :-) They don't care what's stored as 0xffffff85, blah blah, just what they actually see. Oh, and doing the same to/from using -123 and base_convert(), you'll get +123! IMO, it was *wrong* to convert a negative to unsigned long. Absolute value should've been used like with base_convert (though that may be by chance rather than design :-)). Of course, it could all be very consistent/logical, to me, by accepting/returning negatives. But what are the thoughts on negative base 2-36 strings? No-no's? > -- > Michael I appreciate your replies. I'll be gone for a while now, so I won't be bothering you with another e-mail. :-P Matt -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
