Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71880 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26171 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2014 15:34:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 2014 15:34:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.216.45 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.45 mail-qa0-f45.google.com Received: from [209.85.216.45] ([209.85.216.45:42814] helo=mail-qa0-f45.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EB/03-09212-D72CBE25 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:34:22 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ii20so6445943qab.32 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:34:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=bl9MCahzLFHe4POBEwKwVyDOBQiuMuhF00ckDza2Uqc=; b=F8hv3kjolKFO3PuKWTeeGc6TfEH3A3YwFP7qjIAg4qy4XEVkRgzTYMR56k9ExVhQYA DhFNz79YKfXBI3YkxrHZ/17s7NP3YBDmX+fv5v+4VztifWSwU5eNWVWAcx7r/fm7DN39 WdV8pbG4yBlVRtYzDE+V+HpV+4thzLWAvqLsa084VJw8NYiJnfMhHoDfUH/Y1IQllPe6 +WTmMdaOxFJY8yFEO8XwlIFF8bHcZuLfiOiX0dXYGUctjg2rA7llc9KpToKoQ07vZ9tQ 0EAYzcV02rEKEqfAvD481sGW5+A5XuIBXfeEHVxpwTFH9mLZ+R9gA2LYj9ud98pD3rIU 2BlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlaqgtU+UXkoe6WQMSihwNoxb3/ukWbA60crqrutwVG9K0a2rZhZDCeZig98mTx/R2awsoK X-Received: by 10.229.35.194 with SMTP id q2mr32602659qcd.7.1391182458562; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.200.30] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m8sm27918903qac.22.2014.01.31.07.34.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:34:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52EBC277.30908@lerdorf.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:34:15 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye , PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rS4gsdpsXSEQ1mOSurEOqJrQQ46mq3BbJ" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] int64/size_t options votes clarification From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) --rS4gsdpsXSEQ1mOSurEOqJrQQ46mq3BbJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/30/14, 11:45 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > In the case this RFC is rejected for 5.6, these options are really not > what is planed to do for 6.x as we should do it the clean way, as > explained in the various discussions here and as many of the > opposition used as argument as well. >=20 > For those having voted no for 5.6 and the options, would you mind > explaining what are your wishes? It will help to move forward, no > matter the outcome of the votes. I thought that was obvious. I prefer not to see this change in 5.x at all, but in case it passes the vote I would want to minimize the API damage. Hence the "No" vote and the hedge votes for minimal 5.x API breakage. This has nothing to do with PHP 6. For PHP 6 there will be other API changes which may very well affect this. -Rasmus --rS4gsdpsXSEQ1mOSurEOqJrQQ46mq3BbJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlLrwngACgkQlxayKTuqOuArlgCfZoOUFDUAa7ag8danhORmZxKt gccAnRK/xXGc/oxb4Iu+zfNrSF8pF2Ix =i2e5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rS4gsdpsXSEQ1mOSurEOqJrQQ46mq3BbJ--