Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76808
Return-Path: <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 83408 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2014 12:19:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 22 Aug 2014 12:19:30 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.45 mail-qa0-f45.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.216.45] ([209.85.216.45:52037] helo=mail-qa0-f45.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 87/E0-13566-25537F35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:19:30 -0400
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id cm18so9537800qab.32
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=1OvbOLyR8OnnHXnsCAUsV8k+TbuEs2HGteHgH68CfCY=;
        b=0VHTQRRiFkClkrf0f3nxTYpx/hl4yICHBtMhnf6zihSSKZxeHpiOzQ6XfpagDiOqJV
         OBBCgMbFZGTld7pNtDIiO8IiOLsnDQ/wyUASFfW+Mt4EOJ9zYsyswPsz0XMqjfcWkv38
         PVaq+56yHMWpxXw5Ve34nEgZfu9nw9OSOnpkiVj4+XAu650Jxh+Xm1KfeH1LrqnE/u0O
         ZleFTnPBfc2dPvuXy92YowPb55dtvoDHeAedBDE2VoSNEntPBYYYJR5sNxN8a6E6VhyA
         SRiX1vjaNhlkk0mGk4FdJRHhxi39SnRYxaH4ofeiJozx2pR0Sik5gTPIEPGTfMOuCwDU
         tFuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.42.195 with SMTP id c61mr7084653qga.54.1408709492436;
 Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.95.146 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU437-SMTP46F4BE3B31A2E578D66E21E2D00@phx.gbl>
References: <CAF+90c_AMJ3SLyX7eDQq-gwFLOCQUfLus+qFfJgAgTzBpZpfEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU437-SMTP46F4BE3B31A2E578D66E21E2D00@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:11:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU43G2YXC_rkFSbLAYjXMnjyc4yo4aRgNn7HEnYYx8-A3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, please. We're all in favor of the 64 bit implementation, but definitely not on
> the naming. I think it was a big mistake to not separate the naming and
> implementation votes initially.
>
> I also would support a shorter RFC cycle, due to its blocking nature.
> [Vote in 2-3 days, vote lasting one week as usual]

No.

-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org