Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76803 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75750 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2014 11:57:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Aug 2014 11:57:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:58907] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/6D-09530-14037F35 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:57:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D77117AA4; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:57:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:57:50 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Nikita Popov cc: PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals! > > Today the int64 RFC has been merged, despite objections regarding the > naming changes it introduces. > > As we were not given a chance to resolve this issue before the merge, > a short proposal has been created, which aims to revert all > unnecessary naming changes and instead use type names that are > consistent with the existing code base and expectations: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/better_type_names_for_int64 > > Due to the unexpected merge on short notice, with no chance for > discussion, this issue is blocking a number of other patches. As such > I ask if we can move through this RFC with a shortened cycle. I would > not appreciate having to wait three weeks to have a workable codebase > again. Yes please. cheers, Derick