Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76756
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.245 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLt7-a9vA-s2b7KymFLkGvFEW5rXJV5n3pMmkS+xxU6-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:42:02 +0100
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 Anatol Belski <ab@php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6E03BE65-260C-4B94-9587-C785FBC112C2@ajf.me>
References: <CA+9eiLt7-a9vA-s2b7KymFLkGvFEW5rXJV5n3pMmkS+xxU6-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 64-bit integers and 64-bit string length patch is ready to be merged
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:23, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> The only thing that I don't like is a massive renaming described here
> =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next#semantical_macro_renamings
>=20
> IS_LONG -> IS_INT
> Z_LVAL -> L_IVAL
> etc
>=20
> On one hand using INT may be more consistent, on the other hand it's =
going
> to break habits and make addition headache for merging from php-5 (I =
know,
> phpng already made problems)

I don=92t like this. With the bigints patch and RFC, I want to keep =
IS_LONG and the word =93long=94 to distinguish between what would be the =
two types of integer:

* IS_LONG/long - 32-bit or 64-bit integer (machine-dependant)
* IS_BIGINT/bigint - arbitrary-size integer
* IS_BIGINT_OR_LONG/integer - either a long or a bigint (pseudo-type)

Replacing IS_LONG with IS_INT kinda ruins my naming scheme. The =
intention is that =93integer=94 and =93int=94 are synonyms for =93long =
or bigint=94. However, if internally an int is one thing and to userland =
it=92s another, that would be problematic. If this goes through, I=92d =
probably make my bigints patch rename IS_INT to something new again, =
probably IS_SMALLINT or even back to IS_LONG.

If it must be renamed, could it be something else? IS_LONGLONG perhaps? =
Seems stupid on the face of it, but it=92s actually a C `long long` =
underneath, isn=92t it? FWIW, I prefer Z_LLVAL to Z_IVAL.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/