Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71929 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51042 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2014 18:37:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2014 18:37:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.10 mail.experimentalworks.net Received: from [217.114.215.10] ([217.114.215.10:55443] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1F/A2-30967-3FE3DE25 for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 13:37:40 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.31] (ppp-188-174-33-92.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.33.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: johannes@schlueters.de) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEFE4400A4; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 19:38:13 +0100 (CET) To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Christopher Jones , Anatol Belski , PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <52EAF0A3.2000001@oracle.com> <1d5850561e0ef9e7739c7e7b7b0448d0.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> <52EC0B34.8080109@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:37:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1391279853.2941.307.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 20:28 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > I agree that the 64-bit RFC doesn't affect syntax. However it does > > materially > > affect the language, so I believe it requires a 2/3 majority. > > I'd consider it a language-changing RFC. The 2/3 majority is related to > material changes in the language, and as you said, syntax changes are just > one (although the most common) such example. The 50%+1 is really for > extension-level changes - mostly new functions/extensions, moving stuff > to/from PECL, etc. Maybe a good difference might be * Patches touching main/, TSRM/ or Zend/ require 2/3rd * Patches touching only individually SAPIs or exts require 50% johannes