Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71925 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41728 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2014 17:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2014 17:06:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.204] ([217.147.176.204:43110] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 52/41-30967-FA92DE25 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 12:06:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 26937 invoked by uid 89); 1 Feb 2014 17:06:53 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 26930, pid: 26933, t: 0.0645s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO linux-dev4.lsces.org.uk) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 1 Feb 2014 17:06:52 -0000 Message-ID: <52ED2A49.4020602@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:09:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Kovacs CC: PHP Internals References: <1391171792.2941.130.camel@guybrush> <52EB9A16.5060605@phpdoc.de> <1391172906.2941.140.camel@guybrush> <9810c708a9fcc543a263365b5d7c2a63@mail.gmail.com> <52ECF62A.5060401@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > Also see Anatol latest post to internals, the sample extension shows > the difference between a 5.3/4/5 code and one supporting 5.3/4/5 and > with the int64 patch with the option #2 and #3. The changes are really > straightforward and far less intrusive than without these options. > > > I see that the vote currently has swung from yes to no for including in 5.6 > but actually there is no option to include it even in PHP6? The improvement > is required, needs proper planning because of the impact on many third > parties, and should be planned now on the basis of a new PHP6. > > > Nobody said that if rejected this can't be considered for PHP6. > On the contrary, many of the no voters explained that they would have voted yes > if the target version would have been 6.0. Sorry Ferenc ... that was just a little dig at the people commenting on the minutia of how a vote should be carried out ;) The other questions were the important bit ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk