Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76830
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <53F82F16.3030601@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAF+90c_AMJ3SLyX7eDQq-gwFLOCQUfLus+qFfJgAgTzBpZpfEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D19D208D-06E9-4310-92DD-6F02C666138C@ajf.me>
	<CAEZPtU7yMbMSoB2imCH8NX7nCwXttpnf878vJeBK2UypJ_QxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53F7F6ED.1050609@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU5+UYNJcuAnQ+ZS-U4POweEj_J=XMiP8t4zeo7jbZ_15A@mail.gmail.com>
	<53F82F16.3030601@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:09:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7dJrZPb52u0tK9BNp6U2bP1D7wCzOw_3pDiqggd+Y2hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
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 Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/14, 10:46 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> In other words, it would be nice to see more developers actually
>> porting extensions to realize the amount of changes are introduced by
>> NG and by the int64. The sooner is in order of magnitude must larger.
>> It is not a bad comment, only a fact. Given that, before we choose to
>> say that it is fine for one part to change APIs/Macros signatures or
>> names and not for another, we should really get a better view of what
>> has actually changed. And how we can deal with our old habit to
>> maintain one tree for many major PHP versions. For many extensions, I
>> do not think it will be possible, or with unreadable code with 2-3x
>> more #ifdef all over the place.
>
> I knew you would make this comparison. I am willing to suffer porting
> pain if it gets me a 20% performance boost. I am completely unwilling to
> suffer any porting pain because Pierre has decided he doesn't like the
> names of some macros.

Sorry Rasmus, this reply is irrelevant or off base. What in my reply
makes you tell that it is about my taste? It is the exact same
argument you used and about showing that it is not possible to do what
you said for many cases.

You also totally ignore other valid points, raised by other developers
(working on porting exts, like Remi, f.e.). This is something we have
to discuss and solve, no matter the outcome of this discussion.

Anyway, thanks for this constructive reply.


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org